: i'J ij*'* • * 

Us 


: l$iip!fei$ !!$ 
iHlp#! 

/ f«, «; ».»'. ! »’ i. 

:U! 

•. 

; <;•/■. «•'?; 

‘. ( V. •, i,.*.::;. •; i > , \ , 




. $?»f lljjHjIyj! 
:U;j ; 
! ihj ?r. 

;•: {t u; 


* J l’{ *. * J ‘ ‘ •;, * i *; *! * \ 

||| 

Ki mtiwt 

t i 



























































































































































































































































































































































































































































* ‘ r‘ G t 0KC» ‘ 3 4 > ' _ . 

,.o /^W', V > * 














*ov 












•• ,>. 



T. ■: 


. < • 1 

. 

&EPA 

U.S. Environmental Protec 
* 

tion Agency 

. - ■ ERA 22Q/K-02 

•ooi. 

. « '■ 

• 

■ » , . ' . , * ' ■ : . 

. , 



THE 

GREENING 

CURVE 

Lessons Learned in the Design of the 
. New EPA Campus in North Carolina 








THE 


GREENING 





Lessons Learned in the Design oitfcie 
New EPA Campus in North Carolina 

. t 


X. - 'ML ' 


— November 2001 



mt >c 

filH 










p.i •«-' 


WEggSi . '*1 . 

"3 

r£v s ">-' ' I 


' 










*§**^£3 








£3® 

4 J 3 b 

~ T ' 









s ** . *t£FlrL*‘* r 

UZ. * * ■■■ «LZlt«dap» 






^6? i y^^sf 


jj.itiih*"' 

i**'.—-~y~—: ••!•• *'**• _•—■*«<*■ 

8^>. r . ' . 


































ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 


Sandra Mendler, of Hellmuth, Obata and Kassalmim, was the 
principal author of the Greening Curve. Contributors and reviewers 
included Wanda Allen.Tom Ashmore, Alt&fAtkins, Bob Barr, Jim 
Doussard, Bill Gaines, Jamie Gagliarducci, Sandy Germann, Bucky Green, 
Judy Kincaid, Bill Laxton, Sandra Leibowitz, Fred LiC - .on, Chris Long, 
Gail Lindsey, Nadav Malin, Lisa McCabe, BillJ ^Rpr gft^ic^el Overcash, 
Robert Payne, Suzanne Roberts, Peter Sbftubert, Rhonda Sherman, 
Donna Stankus, James White, Gail Whitfield, Joyce Yin and many others. 


V. .-fjy ’a 







TABLE OF 

' E N T S 



I ift&'te 
, 33 

3-oo I 

V 

Introduction i 


Project Summary v 

The Process 

The Importance of Common Sense 
The Result 


Lessons Learned 


VII 


Background I 

Sustainability 2 

What is Sustainable Development? 

Green Buildings 

Sustainable Design Resources 

Sustainable Design for Federal Facilities 

Resource Conservation 

Pollution Prevention 

Ecosystems Protection 

Indoor Environmental Quality 


Design Process Discussion 

The Right Start 

Making the Commitment 
Defining the Challenge 
Prioritizing Environmental Goals 
Embedding Green Goals in Conceptual Design 
Seizing Early Opportunities 

Design Optimization: A Cyclical Process 

Evaluating Criteria/Revising Assumptions 
Identifying Performance Benchmarks 
Using Models and Evaluation Tools 
Researching Environmental Impact 

Greening the Team 

Environmental Champions on the Team 
Local Sustainability Network 
Integrated Team Approach 

Maintaining the Commitment 18 

Following Through on the Details 
Tracking Environmental Performance 
Using Green Value Engineering 
Preparing for Construction 

Conclusion 23 


LC Control Number 



I HO 






24 



Design Issues Discussion 

Site Design 

Minimize Site Disruption 
Structured Parking 
Fire Lanes 
Erosion Control 
Loop Road 

Preservation and Enhancement of Wetland Areas 
Specimen Tree Study 
Water Quality 

Pollution Prevention Strategies 
Erosion Control 
Water Pretreatment Options 
Landscaping 

Low-Maintenance Landscaping 
Grasses and Wildflowers 
Wetland Plantings 
Composting 
Building Envelope 

Evaluation of Building Loads 
Sun Control 
Glass Selection 
Thermally Broken Windows 
Light Shelves 
Insulation 
Infiltration 
Albedo Control 
Operable Windows 
Space Planning 

Modular Office Design 
Modular Lab Design 
Building Atrium 

Building Massing 
Energy and Daylighting Analysis 
Atrium Skylight Options 
Lighting Systems 

Green Lights 
Daylighting 
Task Lighting 
Laboratory Lighting 
Office Lighting 
Special Spaces 
Lighting Controls 
Exit Signs 


27 

29 

31 











Building Mechanical Systems 
Energy Modeling 
Central Utility Plant 
High Efficiency Chillers and Boilers 
Variable Air Volume 
Outside Air Economizer Cycle 
Variable Frequency Drives 
High Efficiency Motors and Fans 
Heat Reclamation for Hot Water Generation 
Laboratory Fume Hoods 
Heat Recovery for Laboratory Exhaust 
CFC Free Refrigeration Equipment 
Building Humidification 

Central Direct Digital Control (DDC) System 
Building Commissioning 
Building Acceptance Test Manual 
Summary of HVAC Systems 
Water Conservation 

Water Conserving Fixtures 
Water Efficient Cooling Towers 
Ozone Treatment for Cooling Towers 
Alternative Technologies 
Photovoltaics 
Fuel Cells 
Wind Power 
Solar Hot Water 

Central Hot Water vs. Point-of-Use Hot Water 
Grey Water Reuse 
Rain Water Catchment 
Building Materials 

Life Cycle of Materials and Products 
Durable Materials 
Recycled Content 
Local Materials 

Low Toxic and LowVOC Materials 
Sustainably Harvested Wood 
Resource Recovery 
Site Materials 

Government Procurement Requirements 
Indoor Air Quality 

Source Control, Source Isolation and Source Dilution 
Designing for Indoor Air Quality 
IAQ Facilities Operation Manual 
Indoor Air Quality vs. Energy Efficiency 
Low-Emission Materials 
IAQ Testing of Materials 
Construction Procedures 
Risk Prevention 

Electromagnetic Fields 
Radon Gas 
Waste Management 

Efficient Building Design 
Waste Reduction 



49 

50 


53 


58 


63 

65 


Increased Building Longevity 
Building Adaptability 
Collection and Handling of Recyclables 
Recycling Chutes 
Reuse of On-Site Materials 
Construction Waste Recycling 
Gypsum Grinding 
Construction 

Partnering for Construction 
Plant Rescue 

Reuse of Land Clearing Debris 
Rock Crushing 

On-Site Concrete Batch Plant 
RotoReclaimer 

Salvage of Demolition Materials for Reuse 
Construction Waste Recycling 
Use of Recycled Content Building Materials 
Submittals Review During Construction 
Constant Vigilance 


Endnotes 


68 


The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 


INTRODUCTION 




The Greening Curve 

Buildings have an enormous impact on the environment. Consuming hundreds of 
tons of building materials, drawing billions of watts of electricity and burning 
countless barrels of fuel during each their lifetimes, every home, school, hospital, 
factory, lab or office that we build will gobble up natural resources and effect 
pollution for many decades. So when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
started planning the largest facility in its history, environmental impacts were key 
considerations.The Agency faced a haunting question-how could EPA build more 
than one million square feet of labs and offices on a wooded, 132-acre site without 
making sustainability a key consideration? 

The answer was easy. As one of the leading environmental organizations in the 
world, EPA had to lead by example. But what did this mean in practice? What, 
exactly, should be done to build a “green” building? On a government project with 
an average budget, how could EPA pay the price to build a campus that would serve 
as a model for environmental stewardship? Finding the answers would prove to be 
quite a challenge, especially since few people believed it was possible to be 
ecologically smart without being economically foolish. 

As EPA began designing this new campus, a revolution was quietly stirring. 
Designers and builders around the globe were starting to work together to 
define sustainable building practices. As success stories were shared and new 
ideas caught on, the green building movement began to emerge. 

As the national and international design and construction communities worked 
diligently to address the issue of sustainability, so did the team that designed 
the EPA campus.The steep learning curve for green buildings presented 
countless questions, yet offered few easy answers. Nonetheless, a growing 
number of architects, engineers, builders and facility owners sought to define 
for themselves what was needed to build high-performance buildings in 
environmentally-responsible ways.The project team for the new EPA Campus 
at Research Triangle Park immersed itself in this dialogue-actively participating 
and helping to shape many of the discussions. 



Thus, the parallel paths met.The new EPA campus took root as sustainable 
buildings began to grow in number and significance. “The Greening Curve” 
shares lessons from this common journey in the hope that others will be able 
to create even better, more environmentally-sound buildings in the future. 


EPA Campus Milestones 

1984-1991 Planning 

1992-1995 Design 

1996 - 1997 Procurement 

1997 - 2001 Construction 


Introduction 







Sustainable Building Milestones 

1987 “ Sustainability ” defined by the World Commission on 

Environment and Development. 

/ 990 American Institute of Architects (AIA) Committee on the 

Environment established. 

/ 992 Green Building Case Studies start to emerge-Audubon 

House (New York City), Natural Resources Building 
(Olympia,Washington) and others. 

Environmental Resources Guide funded by EPA and 
published by AIA. 

Energy Policy Act passed in the United States 

1993 U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) established. 

Early Green Building Assessment Tools unveiled in Canada 
(BEPAC) and Great Britain (BREEAM). 

Federal Executive Orders issued on acquisition, recycling, 
waste prevention and ozone-depleting substances. Other 
Executive Orders followed through the year 2000, covering 
energy and water conservation and environmental 
management. 

/ 995 Federal Guidelines for Buying Recycled issued by EPA 

(Recovered Materials Advisory Notice). 

/ 996 Sustainable Building Technical Manual published by EPA, U.S. 

Department of Energy, USGBC and Public Technology, Inc. 

1997 Green Developments case studies published by Rocky 
Mountain Institute. 

1998 First U.S. Green Building Assessment Tool released by 
USGBC as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design 
(LEED). 

First International Green Building Assessment Tool created 
and tested through the Green Building Challenge (GBC) 
conference in Canada. 

Green Building Advisor guidelines and case studies issued by 
the Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainable 
Technology. 

BEES Life Cycle Materials Database first released by the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology (Building for 
Environmental and Economic Sustainability—BEES). 


The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 


II 



















Learning Together 

The team that created the new EPA campus involved itself in the development of 
several of these nationally recognized sustainable building tools-such as LEED, the 
Green Building Challenge, the Environmental Resource Guide, BEES and the Green 
Building Advisor. Locally, the team also helped craft the Triangle J Regional High 
Performance Building Guidelines, as well as the “WasteSpec” construction recycling 
specification which has now become a national reference. 

By joining forces with others who were eager to make better buildings, and by 
tapping EPA’s own in-house environmental experts, the design team was able 
to enhance the quality of the new campus while advancing the broader 
dialogue on sustainability. 


The Team 

EPA proved that a state-of-the-art laboratory and office complex can be a 
model for environmental stewardship without costing extra.The key to this 
success was a dynamic, creative team approach that involved a radical shift in 
culture. From day one, the environment was placed on equal footing with cost 
and performance-a new mindset that helped guide every major decision and 
ultimately created a model for sustainable facilities. 

Key members of the project team are as follows: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

As the owner, EPA was a hands-on, active participant in the project. In 
addition to full-time project managers and engineers, EPA brought 
researchers and regulatory program experts in as advisors on 
environmental issues. 

U.S. General Services Administration 

GSA served as a technical consultant during design and managed the 
construction phase of the new EPA campus. 


m 


Introduction 






U.S.Army Corps of Engineers 

The Army Corps of Engineers was the primary design consultant to 
EPA and GSA throughout design and construction. 

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 

EPA’s neighbor and partner on the federal site, NIEHS operates 
central campus utility services and shares responsibility for the 
on-site child care center. 

Designers-HOK 

Hellmuth, Obata + Kassabaum (HOK) Inc. was the lead design firm, 
and their newly-formed national “Green Team” leader became an 
integral member of the EPA project team. Major consultants included 
Roberts/Stacy Group (associated architect), R.G.Vanderweil, Inc. 
(mechanical/electrical), Greenhorne and O’Mara, Inc. (civil), Weidlinger 
Associates (structural), GPR Planners (lab design), and Cortell 
Associates (environmental). 

Construction Manager-Gilbane 

As a consultant to GSA, Gilbane Building Company provided 
construction administration and quality assurance services. 

Construction Contractor-Clark 

Clark Construction Group built the l.l million square foot main 
facility and campus infrastructure. 

Design-Build Contractor-Beers 

During the construction of the main facility, Beers Construction 
Company updated and redesigned EPA’s National Computer Center 
and built this separate, 100,000 square foot building on the campus. 


The Green Bottom Line 

Here’s what the team has delivered-a 100-year building, 40% energy savings, 
80% construction waste recovery, 100% stormwater treatment through native 
plants and wetlands on site, soothing daylight in offices, clean indoor air, 
flexible labs and more-all with no extra budget for building “green.” 



The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 


IV 






Project Name 

US EPA Campus 

Location 

Research Triangle Park, 

North Carolina 

Completion Date 

Year 2001 

Square Footage 

Total gross area: 1, 160,000 
Net program area: 625,000 

• Laboratory space: 270,000 

• Office space: 220,000 

• Computer center: 70,000 

• Building common: 50,000 

• Child care center: 15,000 

Examples of Materials Used 

• 4 acres of concrete block walls 

• 35 acres of drywall 

• 7 acres of carpet 

• 12 acres of ceiling tile 

• 2,861 interior doors 

• 19.6 miles of telcom conduit 


Accomplishments 
Site Design 

Building fits within contours of 
site, reducing need to regrade 
and limiting disruption to habitats 
and wetlands. Natural woodlands 
and wildflower plantings minimize 
water, fertilizer and pesticide use, 
and reduce associated 
maintenance costs. 

Water Quality 

Stormwater runoff is treated 
naturally using bio-retention, an 
innovative system that uses soil 
and plants to remove 
contaminants from stormwater. 
Reductions in impervious surface 
for roadways and parking, 
increase green space. 


PROJECT 

SUMMARY 


The new EPA Campus at Research Triangle Park, North Carolina is home to 
one of the world’s largest groups of scientists, engineers, policy makers and 
administrators dedicated to understanding and solving environmental problems. 
With hundreds of environmentally-friendly features, it’s also a model “green 
building” and proof that environmental protection can be accomplished 
without raising costs. 




The new campus is the largest construction project in EPA’s history, and from the 
start, EPA recognized it had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to lead by example. 
EPA chose to build a home that strongly reflected the missions to be carried out 
within its walls. While providing the Agency with flexible, state-of-the-art 
laboratories and offices, the new campus also embodies a solid environmental 
ethic in every aspect of design, construction and operation. 


The 1.2 million square foot facility is located on a 133-acre site, part of a 31 l-acre 
federal campus dedicated to environmental and public health research. It 
accommodates more than 2,000 people and contains 600 laboratory modules in five 
laboratory wings, three office wings and a six-story office tower with a cafeteria and 
conference center. The buildings are organized along a series of atria that act together 
as a “main street” to enhance communication among professional staff. Laboratory 
types include chemistry and biology labs, materials testing labs, electronics labs, 
automobile testing facilities, and large-scale combustion research labs. 


The Process 


From the beginning, the core design group focused on defining environmental 
objectives and tracking progress toward meeting them. Work sessions included 
participation by green advocates, architects, engineers and building users including 
researchers and administrative officers. One of the most valuable benefits of the 
process was the discussion between technical and non-technical people. Innovative 



v 







solutions emerged from systematically 
reviewing multiple options, and making 
comparisons with a variety of functional 
and environmental benchmarks. The 
environmental soundness of decisions 
was tested in every phase of design. 

The Importance of 
Common Sense 

Raising questions every step of the way, 
design team members maintained a 
focus on their specialties while 
collaborating across disciplines to 
identify creative, practical solutions. By 
stepping back and viewing the whole 
through the lens of environmental 
stewardship, large, seemingly obvious 
issues were uncovered that might 
otherwise have been overlooked. 

For example: 



Why install non-native turf grass that 

requires ongoing maintenance and will use 250,000 gallons of water per month in the 
summer, when we can use wildflowers, native grasses and native woodland plantings 
that will be more appropriate to the natural site environment and require little care? 


Why would water quality ponds that were intended to serve as a passive “natural" 
technology require the destruction of acres of forestland? Wasn’t there a solution that 
would be less disruptive to the site? 

How can we install over seven acres of carpeting into a facility without understanding 
how the choice of carpeting affects the longevity of the carpet, how maintenance 
impacts indoor air quality and what the recyclability is at the end of its useful life? 


The Result 

The facility limits environmental 
impact throughout all aspects of its 
design, construction and operation. 
Within a fixed budget, the project 
team was able to meet all functional 
requirements, reduce long-term 
operating costs and improve 
environmental performance. The 
result is a campus that reflects the values 
of EPA through its stewardship of 
natural resources while simultaneously 
demonstrating the added value that can 
be realized from a sustainable approach 
to design and construction. 



Energy Conservation 

Compared with standard new 
lab/office construction, the EPA 
Campus uses 40% less energy 
for a projected savings of more 
than one million dollars per 
year-conserving non-renewable 
fossil fuels and reducing air 
emissions. 

Lighting 

Daylighting, high-efficiency lamps 
and ballasts, task lighting, and 
smart controls yield savings in 
electrical energy use and 
improve lighting quality. 

Building Materials 

Building materials selected to be 
durable and low maintenance, 
and to minimize life-cycle 
environmental impact. 
Specifications ensure 
compliance with environmental 
requirements, such as recycled 
content, sustainably-harvested 
wood and chemical content 
limits. 

Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) 

Improved ventilation criteria, 
special construction 
requirements and careful 
selection of materials and 
finishes promote superior IAQ. 
A comprehensive IAQ Facility 
Operations Manual was 
produced to guide future 
operations and maintenance. 

Waste Recycling 

Design accommodates recycling 
during occupancy. 80% of all 
construction waste recycled for 
a diversion of about 10,000 tons 
of material from local landfills. 
Design flexibility conserves 
resources by minimizing impact 
of future changes. 


The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 


vi 












LESSONS 

LEARNED 


Green Design Is Better Design 

In addition to being environmentally responsible, the green design strategies 
employed for the EPA Campus project provided equal or better performance in 
terms of comfort, durability and ease of maintenance. Benefits for occupants 
include greater access to daylight, more fresh air, protected forest and wetland 
areas and a design that feels more connected to nature. 

Green Design Is Affordable 

Energy and water conservation, low-impact site design, materials minimization 
and other choices have clear economic benefits. Green design features with little 
financial payback can be afforded by making trade-offs in other areas of a project. 
Balance tough choices with easy wins. 

Make the Commitment 

Project leaders must make clear, consistent, and unambiguous statements about 
their commitment to design and build a green building. An owner can underscore 
their commitment to green design by including environmental design requirements 
in the design contract. 

Focus on the Process 

The state-of-the-art for green design is evolving rapidly, and the best green design 
solutions are highly responsive to their site and the unique requirements of their 
building type. Focus on the design process to achieve your goals. 

Seek out Green Partners 

There is a growing community ol architects, engineers and builders that are 
dedicated to developing green buildings. Begin with committed partners that share 
your vision and enjoy the challenge of green design. 

Recruit Environmental Champions 

To maintain a focus on green design goals, owners, designers and builders need to 
identify green champions to lead within their ranks. Green advocates on the team 
can perform ongoing design reviews and promote multi-disciplinary collaboration 
to achieve the best solutions. 

Identify Performance Benchmarks 

Benchmarks put performance data in perspective. Seek out benchmark 
information that will allow the team to understand “typical” performance as well 
as the potential for “improved” green building performance. 

Tap Into the Sustainability Network 

Awareness and knowledge of green design is growing rapidly, and many are eager 
to share their knowledge in the interest of protecting the environment. Discover 
extensive resources on the internet and in print, and place a priority on local 
resources. Talk to others who have been through a green building process, and visit 
their facilities. 


Lessons Learned 


Reconsider Assumptions 

Design criteria drive performance. Great savings can come from challenging 
criteria that may no longer be valid. Encourage the team to raise questions and 
re-evaluate assumptions. 

Make Time for Research 

Even though more and more resources are being created to help design teams 
understand environmental impacts, innovative design solutions will require 
research to identify the best solutions. Don’t rush the process unnecessarily. 

Use Models and Evaluation Tools 

Energy and daylighting models can help the team make choices that reduce first costs 
and save energy throughout the life of the project. Green building evaluation tools 
can bring a comprehensive sustainability focus to the design process, and can help 
assess actual results for whole buildings and sites. Make a commitment to use energy 
and daylight modeling and evaluation tools creatively to improve design performance. 

Seize Early Opportunities 

Make an effort to integrate green design strategies in the early phases of design. 
While it is never too late to make a better choice, the cost of shifting to greener 
design alternatives will increase over time. 

Use Green Value Engineering 

Often seen as a threat to green design because of its focus on immediate savings, 
value engineering (VE) can be used as a tool for improving environmental 
performance. To ensure a balanced focus on cost, function and the environment, 
assign green advocates as full-time participants in the VE process. 

Prepare for Construction 

Take time to explain green design goals to the construction team. Because green 
design strategies are still new to many contractors, sessions to educate both 
management and the workers can be extremely valuable. Establish the 
environment as a project goal on equal footing with traditional construction goals 
of safety, quality, budget and schedule. 

Follow Through During Construction 

Pay close attention throughout the construction process, with a keen eye toward 
specification compliance and substitutions. 

Keep Talking 

Make sure that environmental considerations are part of key conversations. It takes 
constant reinforcement to maintain the focus. 


The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 


VIII 






BACKGROUND 


In 1968, the Research Triangle Foundation deeded land to the federal government 
for a “U.S. Public Health Service Research Park,” setting aside 511 acres for 
federal environmental research facilities. The National Institute of Environmental 
Health Sciences (NIEHS) was the first to locate there in 1980. The National 
Center for Air Pollution Control, later to become EPA, had recently moved to 
North Carolina from Cincinnati, Ohio. Without funds for a permanent facility, 
they set up temporary quarters in leased space in the Raleigh/Durham/Research 
Triangle Park (RTP) area. As EPA became established in RTP, it expanded into a 
collection of leased buildings which were not ideally suited to its research needs. 
This dispersion of staff led to extensive amounts of time spent traveling 
between buildings. 

Between 1984 and 1991, several studies by EPA and GSA evaluated long-term 
housing alternatives for EPA in Research Triangle Park. The studies consistently 
found that EPA could not continue to conduct its research programs in the 
existing leased facilities, and recommended consolidation into a new government- 
owned facility on the federal site. The studies also found that consolidation would 
significantly reduce operating costs-saving the government millions of dollars each 
year while vastly improving laboratory conditions and employee productivity. 

In considering housing alternatives, the government also evaluated the option of 
renovating existing buildings to upgrade laboratories and consolidate the 
workforce. Although building renovation is often viewed as environmentally 
preferable to new construction, this was found to be an impractical alternative. 
EPA owned none of its own facilities, and even the largest was only half the size 
needed to consolidate operations. Massive investment would have been required to 
upgrade structural, mechanical and electrical deficiencies and to meet current code 
requirements. In late 1991, the decision was made to build a new campus when 
Congress appropriated funds for design. 



Background 







SUSTAINABILITY 


What is Sustainable Development? 

Sustainable development was defined by the United Nations World Commission 
on Environment and Development in the 1987 Brundtland Report, as “those paths 
of social economic and political progress that meet the needs of the present without 
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” 1 In 1993, 
a year after the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the World Congress of Architects 
similarly defined “sustainability” for the architectural community. 

There is general agreement that environmental degradation is accelerating 
worldwide, and that projected increases in rates of consumption and population 
growth cannot be sustained. Solutions will require widespread efforts to increase 
efficiency, reduce pollution and restore ecosystems. With a goal of building in 
harmony with the natural environment, sustainable development involves a more 
sophisticated understanding of natural systems than is required by conventional 
development. Sustainable design solutions also require designers to expand their 
awareness of the environmental impact related to industrial processes, 
transportation and construction. Because the impact of buildings and construction 
on the environment is significant, there is great potential for improving the 
environment through better design of buildings. This requires a responsibility to act 
differently than we have in the past to reduce traditional environmental impact. 

Green Buildings 

Roughly one-third of the environmental impact in the U.S. is reported to come 
from constructing, operating and demolishing buildings. This impact is a result of 
both the direct and indirect consequences of land use, natural resource depletion, 
air and water pollution and waste generation. 

Green buildings seek to limit adverse impact on the environment and health 
throughout their entire life cycles-from the acquisition of materials, 
transportation, construction, use and eventual disuse. To accomplish this, 


Sustainability means 
meeting our needs today 
without compromising the 
ability of future generations 
to meet their own needs. 

—UIA/AIA World Congress of 
Architects, June 1993 


Environmental Impact of Buildings 

Percentage of U.S. nationwide, annual impact 



I 


0% 50% 


100 % 


Source: Worldwatch Institute and U.S. EPA2 


The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 














A Sampling of 

Environmental Requirements 
Mandated by Executive Orders 

EO #12843: Procurement 
Requirements and Policies for 
Federal Agencies for Ozone- 
Depleting Substances, 4/93 

Requires minimizing procurement of 
ozone-depleting substances per 
phaseout schedules outlined in the 
Clean Air Act 


designers must view the building holistically and consider environmental impact 
related to site development, transportation and infrastructure, as well as the 
impact related to the full life-cycle of all building materials and products that 
comprise the building. 

Green buildings represent important steps in the evolution of buildings and 
communities toward sustainability. As such, they consider all opportunities to: 

• Conserve Resources 

• Prevent Pollution 

• Protect Ecosystems 

• Enhance Indoor Environmental Quality 


EO #12873: Federal Acquisition, 
Recycling, and Waste Prevention, 
10/93 

Requires EPA to publish federal 
procurement guidelines for 
recommended recovered content 
in certain materials. 

EO #12902: Energy Efficiency and 
Water Conservation at Federal 
Facilities, 3/94 

Requires federal agencies to implement 
conservation strategies in their buildings 
as stated in EPACT. 

EO #13101: Greening the 
Government Through Waste 
Prevention, Recycling, and Federal 
Acquisition, 9/98 

Requires GSA and Department of 
Defense to develop sustainable design 
and development principals for the siting, 
design and construction of new facilities: 
requires agencies to design new facilities 
based on lowest life-cycle cost 

EO #13123: Greening the 
Government Through Efficient 
Energy Management, 6/99 

Requires government to promote 
sustainable building concepts and help 
foster markets for emerging sustainable 
technologies. 

EO #13148: Greening the 
Government Through Leadership 
in Environmental Management, 
4/00 

Requires federal agencies to integrate 
environmental accountability into daily 
decision making and long-term planning 
processes across all agency missions, 
activities and functions. 


Sustainable Design Resources 

When EPA began planning for its new facility, the concept of "sustainable design” 
was just beginning to gain momentum in the U.S. Only a handful of green case 
study buildings had been completed, and the information on what to do and how 
to do it was scarce. In 1990, shortly after the 20th anniversary of Earth Day, the 
American Institute of Architects (AIA) established the Committee on the 
Environment (COTE) to begin the process of fdling the information void for the 
architectural profession. In 1991, EPA entered into an agreement with the ALA. to 
work together to create a comprehensive environmental design resource guide 
entitled the Environmental Resource Guide (ERG). The ERG was first published 
in 1992 as an AIA publication, and was subsequently republished by John Wiley & 
Sons in an updated format in 1996, followed by annual updates in 1997 and 1998. 

Throughout the 1990s, the “green building” movement continued to evolve. In 
1993, the U.S. Green Building Council was formed and began work on a green 
building rating system for the U.S. In 1996, a comprehensive sustainable design 
resource guide entitled the Sustainable Building Technical Manual was published 
by Public Technology Inc. with the support of EPA, the Department of Energy 
and the U.S. Green Building Council. In 1997, John Wiley & Sons published 
Green Developments, a compendium of 100 recently completed green building 
case studies written by the Rocky Mountain Institute. Since this time, additional 
green design resources have emerged. 

Sustainable Design for Federal Facilities 

The Energy Policy Act (EPACT) of 1992 was an important milestone in the 
sustainable design movement because it signaled the federal government’s 
recognition of its own leverage, applied through example and through unparalleled 
purchasing power. EPACT was signed into law in October 1992, shortly after 
design work had begun on the new EPA Campus. It provided guidance to federal 
facility planners on how to improve the energy performance of their agencies, and 
it set a goal of a 30% reduction in commercial building energy usage by 2005, 
based on a 1985 baseline. EPACT required that all government buildings “install 
in Federal Buildings owned by the United States all energy and water conservation 
measures with payback periods of less than 10 years,” and that these conservation 
measures be evaluated using a life-cycle costing methodology. 

EPACT also mandated that each federal agency that constructs at least five buildings 
a year “designate at least one building, at the earliest stage of development, to be a 
showcase highlighting advanced technologies and practices for energy efficiency, or 
use of solar and other renewable energy.” Even though EPACT and the subsequent 
Executive Orders (EOs) were enacted after design had already begun on the new 


3 


Sustainability 


Campus, it provided additional support and validation to project team members 
committed to developing the EPA Campus as a showcase facility. In June 1999, the 
federal commitment to green buildings remained strong as EO #13123 was issued, 
further advancing the government’s pledge to green its facilities. 

Resource Conservation 

Resource use, which includes energy, water and materials, is fundamental to the 
impact buildings have on the environment. Non-renewable resources are being 
depleted and many renewable resources, such as timber and water, are being 
extracted at rates that exceed their ability to be replenished. According to the 
Worldwatch Institute, three billion tons of raw materials, approximately 40% of 
all materials entering the global economy, are turned into foundations, walls, pipes 
and panels for building construction each year. 3 

Green buildings seek to use environmentally-preferable building materials. This 
refers to all of the products and materials that have reduced the environmental 
impact over the full life-cycle of the material, as compared to other available 
options. Conservation of material resources also depends on efficient use of 
materials, enhanced durability and strategies to encourage re-use and recycling of 
resources. Green buildings accommodate re-use and recycling so that waste 
generated by building occupants can be handled properly. Construction waste, 
which constitutes approximately 23% of municipal landfill content, can also be 
reduced, re-used and recycled. 

Energy conscious design reduces the use of energy resources through 
improvements to siting, building envelope design and daylighting with energy- 
efficient electric lighting. Required mechanical systems should be optimized to 
maximize efficiency, and heat reclaim systems that “recycle” energy for heating, 
cooling and/or humidifying the air should be investigated. 


Opportunities to 
Conserve Resources 

Energy Use 

• Heating and cooling 

• Air circulation 

• Lighting 

• Water heating 

• Special equipment 

• Plug loads 

Water Use 

• Landscape irrigation 

• Plumbing fixtures 

• Mechanical equipment 

• Appliances 

Building & Site Materials 

• Raw material acquisition 

• Production processes 

• Packaging and shipping 

• Installation and finishing 

• Durability 

• Maintenance 

• Waste disposal and recycling 


U.S. ENERGY USE WITH 
AREAS AFFECTED BY ARCHITECTURE 


1 % 

impact of architect's 
decisions on transportation 


energy use not 
related to construction 
or operation of buildings 



20 % 

fossil fuel 

space heating, cooling 
domestic hot water, misc. 


I 1% 

electricity for 
building operation 

2 % 

electricity for 
building construction 

3% 

fossil fuel for 
building construction 


Source: NCAR 8, 1993 


NCARB 

The National Council of 
Architectural Registration Boards 
is a non-profit federation of 55 
state and territory architectural 
registration boards in the 
United States. 


The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 


4 


Sources of Pollution 
Energy Use 

• Petroleum extraction and 
refinement 

• Oil spills 

• Air emissions and nuclear waste 
from energy usage 

• Air pollution from automobiles 
and other transportation 

• Thermal waste 

• Ozone-depleting substances 

Water Use 

• Contaminated runoff 

• Waste water 

• Water treatment by-products 

Materials Use 

• By-products from material 
manufacture 

• Wasteful packaging 

• Solid and liquid waste 

• Hazardous waste 

Environmental Impact on 
Ecosystems 

• Displacement of habitat for 
buildings, roadways and parking 

• Increase in impervious surface 

• Reduction in groundwater 
recharge 

• Soil erosion 

• Contamination of water bodies 

• Contamination of groundwater 

• Use of invasive exotic plants 

• Use of fertilizers and pesticides 

• Urban heat island effect 


Finally, conservation of water resources in green buildings involves strategies to use 
less water for HVAC equipment and appliances, flushing fixtures, potable water 
uses and irrigation. Water harvesting and water re-use strategies can reduce 
demand for potable water supplies. 

Pollution Prevention 

Buildings and their sites contribute to the creation of waste and pollution as a 
result of their use of energy, water and materials. In nature there is no waste 
because all by-products of natural processes serve as “food” for other processes. 
Many of the industrial processes employed in the creation of buildings, however, 
release solid, liquid or gaseous by-products into the environment that serve no 
useful purpose and are potentially harmful. 

Green building design searches for solutions that prevent the creation of pollution 
at the source. By limiting energy and water use, and making efficient use of 
environmentally-preferable materials, pollution can be reduced. Integrating 
environmentally-sound recycling into design solutions can further reduce pollution. 
Waste treatment followed by safe disposal is required for pollution that cannot be 
prevented or recycled. On-site, natural treatment options should be considered to 
treat waste including bioretention, constructed wetlands and composting. 

Ecosystems Protection 

The impact of buildings on natural ecosystems occurs on multiple levels, including 
loss of open space and habitat, intrusion on fragile ecosystems, alteration of 
stormwater flows, erosion and loss of soil resources, contamination of water 
resources and use of non-native and invasive species or monocultures of vegetation. 
Green buildings seek to develop “low impact” solutions which work in harmony 
with natural systems, and minimize disruption to plant and animal habitats. 
Redevelopment of previously built sites and compact development can limit 
disruption. Native, low maintenance landscapes, reductions in impervious materials 
and natural filtration of stormwater can reduce the need for treatment strategies. 

Indoor Environmental Quality 

In the United States, it has been estimated that people spend more than 90% of 
their time indoors. 4 This makes the quality of the indoor environment critical. 
Indoor environmental quality refers to comfort and building-related health and 
productivity issues that result from the quality of interior lighting, acoustics, 
thermal control and indoor air quality (LAQ). 

Indoor air quality depends upon a variety of factors, including the levels of 
particulates, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and molds, bacteria or other 
biological contaminants in the air stream. Indoor air contaminants can come from 
building and finish materials, cleaning and maintenance products, mechanical 
equipment, microbial growth in wet areas, tobacco smoke, radon gas, office 
machines, exterior pollution and a variety of other sources. 

EPA rates indoor air pollution among the top five environmental risks to public 
health. It has been estimated that unhealthy indoor air is found in up to 30% of 
new and renovated buildings. Both the long- and short-term health effects of poor 
indoor air are revealing themselves at an increasing rate due to occupant 
complaints, while specific LAQ problems are being discovered through testing 
and monitoring. 


5 


Sustainability 


Temperature of the indoor environment is also an important factor. American 
Society of Heating and Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers stipulates 
that the indoor comfort zone is between 68 degrees Fahrenheit and 82 degrees 
Fahrenheit, and 20 to 50 percent relative humidity. If people are too hot or too 
cold, the discomfort will cause inefficiency in their performance. 

Equally as important is lighting. Natural lighting generally improves the 
environment, uplifting people and enhancing their productivity. Electrical lighting 
should be designed to simulate the effect of natural light. 

Acoustics are also a critical factor in the indoor environment. In today’s fast-paced 
office environment, people need quiet spaces that minimize disruptive noise and 
afford a sense of privacy. 

Green building design solutions promote healthy environments while also seeking 
improved comfort and occupant satisfaction. Recent studies have shown that 
buildings with good indoor environmental quality can provide significant financial 
benefits. Effective ventilation, natural lighting, indoor air quality and good 
acoustics have been shown to significantly increase worker productivity. 


Impact on Indoor 
Environmental Quality 

Site & Landscape 

• Daylight access 

• Reflectivity of exterior 
materials 

• Views, connection to nature 

• Noise 

• Outdoor air quality 

• Vehicle exhaust 

• Radon 

• Pollen and other allergens 

Building & Site Materials 

• Chemical emissions from 
materials, adhesives and finishes 

• Microbial contamination 

• Respirable fibrous materials 



Building Operations 

• Ventilation rates 

• Temperature control 

• Humidity control 

• Daylighting 

• Electric lighting levels 

• Glare 

• Acoustics 

• Chemical emissions from 
cleaning materials 

• Environmental tobacco smoke 

• Noise 

• Pest control 


The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 


6 


















COS! 




Traditional Decision Model 



Green Decision Model 


DESIGN 

PROCESS 

DISCUSSION 

Green buildings challenge the norms of the design and construction industry. 

Design teams must actively search for better alternatives to conventional models to 
successfully reduce the environmental impact related to buildings and construction. 
This search requires an improved decision model that balances cost, function and the 
environment. The result is an approach that expands the traditional “cost-benefit” 
decision model to one that includes environmental performance as a core value. 

Early on, the design team focused on explicitly defining environmental objectives, 
then tracking progress at each stage of design. To support this effort, an open, 
collaborative process was established which enhanced dialogue and decision 
making. The group found that design innovations led not only to the creation of a 
more environmentally sound facility, but to improved quality and lower operating 
costs as well. 

Even though this green design process required extensive research and 
investigation of design alternatives, the group found that the overall design process 
gained efficiencies from the use of an inclusive approach. Guided by clear goals 
and defined milestones, this approach gave a sharp focus to the design effort, 
enabling more to be accomplished within the boundaries of a conventional project 
schedule and budget. 

The Right Start 

At the beginning of every project, there is an opportunity to define goals and 
objectives and establish a strategy for meeting them. First and foremost, EPA 
made a commitment to design and build a green building. From there, the design 
team proceeded to incorporate environmental design goals into each stage of the 
planning process. 

Making the Commitment 

The sheer size of the EPA Campus project-over one million gross square feet of 
offices and laboratories-magnified the environmental impact of each design 
decision. Understanding that by its very nature, the construction of the new facility 
posed a negative impact on the environment, EPA felt a strong responsibility to 
explore design options that promised to minimize this environmental burden. 

In one of the early design reviews, a proposal was presented to route the road 
leading to the new Campus through an area that featured a 100-year-old Oak tree. 
The EPA team made a decision to re-route the road rather than sacrifice the tree 
even though it did require additional time and money. This decision not only sent 
a message to the entire project team underscoring the commitment to the 
environment, it represented the reality of moving toward a green facility. 


7 


Design Process Discussion: The Right Start 



When placed in the context of EPA’s organizational mission, this sense of 
obligation was further magnified. EPA felt that the design and construction of its 
new facility presented not just an opportunity, but also an obligation to lead by 
example. As the building owner, EPA would control nearly all design decisions. If 
done correctly, the Agency believed that its facility could become a functional 
model for the greening of other public and private sector facilities, and help 
advance sustainable design and construction as an industry-wide practice. 

Defining the Challenge 

Before the formal design of the new facility began, EPA set the course for the 
project by describing the environmental challenge both for itself and for the 
professional design team it would solicit. Green design criteria were written into 
the key project documents, including the solicitation for Architect/Engineer (A/E) 
services, the Program of Requirements (POR), and the contract with the chosen 
A/E. By clearly and consistently presenting its environmental goals and explicitly 
integrating them into the project requirements, EPA set a direction for the design 
firms and established a set of procedures for tracking environmental performance 
during the design process. 

The solicitation for A/E services was EPA’s first opportunity to present its vision for 
the new facility to potential A/E contractors. Recognizing the importance of 
choosing a partner that would share EPA’s vision, the contract solicitation required a 
"demonstrated corporate ability to design environmentally sound facilities.” Because 
knowledge about green buildings was not widespread in the U.S. at the time, the 
responses from A/E contractors enabled EPA to gauge the level of experience, 
interest and enthusiasm for the challenge of designing a green building. 


Environmental Requirements in the Design Contract 
General 

• Energy conscious design 

• Highly durable facility design-anticipate a 100-year lifespan 

• Environmentally-sensitive construction materials and products 

• Materials and equipment with no ozone-depleting potential 

• Construction materials with no recycled content 

• Aggressive recycling plan 

• Radon free 

• Water conserving design 

Energy Conservation 

• Daylighting and the optimum use of energy efficient lighting 

• Life-cycle cost analysis of HVAC systems over a 30-year period 

• Building Automated System (BAS) for monitoring and control 

Indoor Air Quality 

• Controls for outdoor and indoor sources of indoor air pollution 

• Detailed site evaluation to determine impact of the site on IAQ 

• Plan for operation and maintenance of HVAC equipment 

• Innovative approaches to maximize ventilation efficiency 

• Evaluation of building materials for potential impact on IAQ 

• HVAC system that minimize impact on IAQ 

• Evaluation for air cleaning devices 


Make environmental goals for the 
facility explicit in the Request for 
Proposals and the Program of 
Requirements. 


Require that the Architect 
and Engineer demonstrate both 
knowledge about and commitment 
to sustainable design. 


“The facility shall be designed to 
reflect its mission.This translates 
into a facility that conserves 
energy, efficiently utilizes water, 
promotes effective recycling, is 
radon free and provides excellent 
indoor air quality to its occupants. 
The architectural and engineering 
design shall implement proven 
methods, strategies and 
technologies which respect and 
protect the environment.” 

-EPA Program 
of Requirements 


The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 


8 



Identify specific environmental 
design requirements in the 
Architect/Engineer contract. 


Engage all team members in 
setting project goals including 
environmental goals. 


Encourage development of 
environmental design goals that 
are overarching in nature, as well 
those that are specific and 
measurable. 


EPA Campus Project Goals 

Top-Tier Goals 

• Functionality 

• Environmental design 

• Low life-cycle cost 


Development of the POR for the new facility presented another important 
opportunity to steer the project toward its environmental goals. A typical POR 
itemizes square footage requirements by space type and sets standards for the 
performance and quality of the facility. EPA expanded this approach through the 
inclusion of broad-based environmental design considerations, supported by 
detailed descriptions of features to be considered during the design process. 
Ultimately the entire POR, including the environmental design requirements, 
became part of the statement of work for the A/E contract. 

In addition to the environmental design requirements captured in the POR, the 
A/E contract contained specific deliverables for each stage of the project that 
supported the development of environmentally-preferable design options. For 
example, there were stand-alone requirements for indoor air quality submittals, 
energy analysis and reports, life-cycle cost studies, site surveys, specimen tree studies, 
an environmental assessment and documentation of related environmental permits. 

Prioritizing Environmental Goals 

While EPA set forth a comprehensive list of environmental design requirements 
for the A/E team to meet, it also recognized that the entire design team would 
need to balance many competing considerations. Consequently, it was necessary to 
integrate environmental goals into the larger matrix of goals for the facility as a 
whole. The process of prioritizing would also provide an opportunity to build 
consensus within the group on the relative importance of the environmental goals 
for the project. 


Specific Goals 

• Maintainability 

• Natural light 

• Communication 

• Flexibility 

• Close proximity/walkability 

• Security 



As a first step, EPA held a two-day design kickoff session for all design team 
members for the purpose of goal setting and team building. During this session, 
the group brainstormed a list of primary design goals for the facility. This list was 
then discussed extensively to develop consensus within the group and to prioritize 
goals. The process of developing goals as a group helped each of the members 
develop a sense of ownership of and commitment to these goals. 

Among these overarching design goals, functionality and environmental design 
were identified as the most important. Cost control was not listed as a priority to 
be debated because it was accepted as a given. There was a fixed budget for the 
project and that budget could not be exceeded. In terms of functionality, the 
facility was being built to support the activities of a diverse group of EPA 
programs, and meeting the operational requirements of this work was paramount. 
The focus on environmental design goals for the facility was underscored when the 
entire team agreed that environmental design was also of primary importance. 
With this decision, environmental performance expectations expanded, beyond 
what was a collection of contract requirements for specific studies and reports 
documenting environmental performance, to become a core issue. 

Embedding Green Goals in Conceptual Design 

Concept design marks the beginning of the design process. It was during this 
phase that the design team began to identify and develop the ideas that organized 
the design. There are many issues at the core of green design that need to be 
addressed up front, while there is an opportunity to influence the building form 
and its placement and orientation on the site. These issues included: 

• limit disruption to site 

• protect wetland areas and existing trees 

• develop orientation and massing to maximize daylight access 

• develop orientation and massing to maximize energy efficiency 

• develop orientation to benefit fresh air flows 


9 


Design Process Discussion: The Right Start 










Design Option Matrix This matrix of design options represents generic 
site organizing concepts on one axis and functional concepts on the other. 
Schemes were systematically scored, based on how they met the functional 
and environmental goals. 


During this phase, the A/E created multiple concept diagrams in search of options 
that were responsive to the functional requirements of the occupants, and that 
held potential for meeting environmental goals. The time invested at this stage of 
the design effort later proved invaluable. By systematically searching for a concept 
design solution that addressed all key issues, the group avoided the need to make 
disruptive changes as the design progressed. 

Many of the defining characteristics of the selected scheme made it more 
responsive to the environment. For example, an “informal” composition with 
buildings and parking decks arranged to fit within the existing site contours was 
selected. This arrangement left more of the original site intact. Important natural 
amenities were preserved such as the knoll of trees at the high-point of the site, 
and the wetlands along the lake edge. This decreased site preparation costs and 
disruption of habitat, and reduced the need for stormwater control measures. 


Explore and test scheme design 
options against stated criteria 
and goals. 


Many environmental design solutions provided design benefits which made the 
Campus more people-friendly. For example, as visitors come up the drive, they see 
the facility revealed one piece at a time. Because the knoll of trees was left intact at 
the high-point of the site, only parts of the building are visible from each vantage 
point. Just as the preservation of the knoll minimizes the impact on the site, the 
limited view of the one-million-square-foot facility minimizes the impact on the 
senses, which could have been overwhelming. 

In addition to addressing immediate issues of the site, the selected scheme provided 
opportunities for future daylighting integration, energy efficiency and features that 
would protect indoor air quality. The central atrium which connects the office 
tower, cafeteria and conference center with labs and office wings, promotes the 
efficient use of daylight. The atrium contributes to energy efficiency by reducing 
the overall building surface area, while increasing access to daylight. The narrow 
proportion of the office buildings and the perimeter corridor in the lab buildings 
also increase access to daylight. To protect indoor air quality in the finished facility, 
the fresh air intake vents were located upwind of the laboratory exhaust stacks, 
based on prevailing winds. 



The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 


10 


































Verify and consolidate program 
requirements to optimize facility 
size and spatial arrangement. 


Explore opportunities to design 
with building modules that 
enhance long-term flexibility. 


Integrate detailed environmental 
requirements in the programming 
and concept design where 
possible, such as elimination of 
internal duct lining and planning 
for recycling. 



Selection of the final scheme required the core group to prioritize and to make 
choices that would influence the future performance of the building. For example, 
the preferred concept design left long building elevations exposed to low angle 
afternoon sun from the west. After analyzing the pros and cons of all of the design 
options, the design team placed a higher priority on preserving natural site features 
than on providing a north-south orientation for all of the buildings. A north-south 
orientation is typically preferred for daylighting because it allows for controlled 
daylight to be shared in open office areas. For the EPA facility, the design team 
reasoned that the need to preserve wetlands and mature habitat areas was 
more important. 

Seizing Early Opportunities 

As the project moved into schematic design, additional opportunities emerged to 
incorporate environmental features. Prior to developing a detailed design solution, 
the program requirements were reviewed and verified to identify ways to reduce 
space demands. For example, the team developed a system for locating conference 
rooms and copy areas in standardized locations which allowed these areas to be 
more easily shared. The introduction of a central library and shared support spaces 
further consolidated resources and reduced overall space needs. 

EPA needed a flexible organizational system that could accommodate changes in 
research programs, and changes in the mix of labs and offices with a minimum of 
renovation. By placing a high priority on flexibility, EPA reduced future renovation 
costs, as well as associated materials use and contribution to the waste stream. The 
lab buildings were designed with a designated service corridor and a “flexible zone” 
of space parallel to the labs that could accommodate either offices or labs. Office 
space standards limited the number of office sizes. Offices are clustered in suites 
with fixed circulation patterns to enhance flexibility while ensuring the occupants 
access to daylight. Office buildings were designed with approximately half of the 
perimeter zone designated as open office areas so daylight can reach interior zones. 

A number of fairly detailed environmental requirements needed to be considered 
at this stage as well. For example, plans for recycling were developed while the 
basic building organization was evolving. The conference center and cafeteria were 
located near the main loading dock to enhance materials handling and recycling. 
Building circulation routes were developed so that recyclables could be moved 
from individual collection areas in the lab and office buildings to the central 
loading dock without crossing public areas. 

EPA’s mandate to eliminate duct lining as a preventative measure had an impact on 
the building’s structural and mechanical system requirements. EPA requested that 
the building be designed without duct linings because they can harbor mold and 
microbial growth, becoming a site of potential contamination that is difficult to 
localize and expensive to clean. Building ductwork can function well without 
linings, however larger ducts are required, and mechanical room layouts must be 
meticulously planned so sound can be attenuated. By incorporating this 
requirement early in design, the design progressed smoothly and the impact 
on cost was negligible. 


11 


Design Process Discussion: The Right Start 










Design Optimization: A Cyclical Process 

As the project progressed into design development, the core design group worked 
systematically to “optimize” the design of the new facility. This process involved 
the careful evaluation of a broad range of solutions and the establishment of 
environmental performance benchmarks to put performance data in perspective. 
Advanced simulation tools were utilized to predict energy and daylighting 
performance. As concepts were tested, the information base for decision making 
expanded and some earlier decisions were revisited. As a result, the design process 
was a cyclical one. The willingness of the team to reconsider and revise its initial 
solutions to improve the design was important to the success of the project. 

Evaluating Criteria/Revising Assumptions 

The design criteria for the EPA campus were initially defined by the POR, EPA 
health and safety policies, the federal site master plan, GSA design standards, state 
codes and local guidelines. These criteria comprised a set of design requirements 
and standards identified at the outset of design. Typically such criteria are accepted 
as a given and design options are explored within these parameters. However, the 
group found that many of the most innovative solutions that reduced both cost 
and environmental impact, came about by challenging and reevaluating these basic 
design criteria. For example, they considered everything from the site area, 
roadway and utility requirements, to the laboratory exhaust requirements, fume 
hood design, office ventilation rates and lighting levels. 

When the first round of concept design schemes was developed for the EPA 
Campus, the design firm attempted to fit more than one million square feet of 
building and 2,500 parking spaces on a 64-acre site. Three stories was the 
preferred height for the building initially proposed because it allowed for extensive 
use of stairways instead of elevators to enhance communication between floors. 
However, evaluation indicated that all of the preliminary concepts would have 
profoundly altered the existing character of the site by forcing nearly complete 
clearing. To preserve the trees, the design group decided to increase the building 
height of the laboratories to five stories. The National Computer Center was 
relocated as a separate building on a parcel of land one-quarter of a mile north of 
the main campus. With the least day-to-day interaction with other EPA programs, 
the Computer Center was the logical choice for relocation. Still, the distance 
between the two facilities is an easy five-minute walk. 

Even with revised massing to allow for taller buildings and a reduced footprint, 
much of the site area would be impacted by buildings and parking. However, the 
revised design parameters provided the group sufficient flexibility to preserve 
important natural features leaving the knoll of mature trees at the high-point of 
the site, the site’s wetland areas and major drainage swales largely intact. Decked 
parking, which is rarely utilized locally, would also limit paved area. 

As the site design progressed, more design features were revisited. For example, the 
number of parking spaces was revised from 2,500 to 1,800, the access roadway 
through the site was revised from four lanes to two, fire lanes were rerouted, 
electrical ductbanks were relocated to beneath the roadway, and curbs and gutters 
were eliminated in favor of grassy swales and bio-retention. Each of these decisions 
required the design team to challenge components of the original design criteria. 
Maintaining flexibility, within the constraints of schedule and cost, the group 
proactively searched for solutions that were cost-effective, practical and 
environmentally-preferable. The resulting design evolved and improved over time. 


Encourage open dialogue within 
the team so that members will 
challenge basic assumptions as 
appropriate to improve the design. 



The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 


12 








Energy Performance 
Benchmarks 

The U.S. Department of 
Energy documents commercial 
buildings energy consumption and 
expenditures in the United States 
for the purpose of benchmarking 
commercial building energy 
performance, including office 
buildings, educational buildings, 
health care buildings and 
laboratories. Primary energy use 
characteristics examined include: 

• Gross energy intensity 

• Energy expenditures by fuel type 


Rocky Mountain Institute 

(RMI) in Snowmass, Colorado, also 
benchmarks building energy 
performance including 

• Gross energy intensity 

• Connected interior lighting load 

• Plug load, as used 

• Mechanical-cooling sizing 

• Whole system cooling 

• Air handling intensity 
RMI’s benchmark figures are 
provided for average, good 
practice and advanced practice. 


American Society of Heating, 

Refrigeration and Air 

Conditioning Engineers 
(ASHRAE) 

• Develops standards for 

the design of HVAC systems 

• Develops and does research to 
produce a set of reference 
books for the design of heating, 
refrigeration and air 
conditioning systems 

• Organizes conventions and 
meetings to review new 
equipment and discuss 
innovations in the industry 

• Is considered by most building 
codes to be the standard for 
design of HVAC systems 


A re-evaluation of energy criteria was critical to the success of the design. Since the 
laboratories represented the largest portion of overall energy use, labs were given 
especially close scrutiny. Ensuring the safety of laboratory workers who must 
handle hazardous substances on a daily basis was of highest priority. Ventilation 
was designed to use 100% outside air and to provide 12 to 15 air changes per 
hour (ACH) so that any contaminants would be quickly exhausted. After intensive 
analysis, the design team was able to present alternatives to EPA safety officers that 
satisfied concerns for uncomplicated, fail-safe solutions. Safe, simple and effective 
energy savings were realized by linking the full closure of fume hood sashes with 
room light switches. The normal exhaust ventilation rate is reduced by half when 
research staff close fume hood sashes and turn off the lab lights as they leave for 
the evening. 

Unfortunately, some of the design criteria that made sense when considered in 
isolation proved to have a ripple effect on other areas of the design that led the 
group to reconsider. For example, the requirement for six ACH in the office areas 
seemed to be beneficial in terms of indoor air quality, because it boosted the 
supply of fresh air. However, when energy modeling predicted that the energy 
consumption would be much higher than was anticipated, the group began to 
re-evaluate the issue. To test the validity of the air change requirement, common 
contaminants known to be emitted in office environments due to occupants and 
furnishings were “modeled” using a computer program called “Exposure.” This 
study led to a reduction of air change rates to a minimum of four ACH that 
maintained good indoor air quality, while improving energy efficiency. 

Identifying Performance Benchmarks 

During design, the design group found that identification of performance 
benchmarks was key to a successful multidisciplinary design dialogue. These 
benchmarks, which identify both “typical” and “improved” performance, allowed 
group members to become informed participants in a discussion that would 
otherwise have excluded them. For example, when architects were able to talk to 
electrical or mechanical engineers about energy consumption in BTU per square 
foot per year, they were better able to measure the value of proposed design 
solutions. These measures gave both specialists and non-specialists some insight 
into when the design was “on track,” and when it could be improved. 

When the design team first evaluated the energy performance of the building as 
designed, members were shocked to find that the design was not only inefficient, 
it was worse than the “standard” benchmark values. Although, the engineers were 
using typically energy efficient components in the building, such as outside air 
economizers, automated lighting controls, and high efficiency chillers, boilers, fans 
and motors, the full benefits were not being realized. The use of energy efficient 
equipment, without design refinements and systems integration, created a poor 
result. Because the results of the energy modeling could be compared to a set of 
benchmark values for typical energy performance in similar buildings, the group 
was alerted to the need to refine the design. This led to a series of revisions to the 
HVAC design that ultimately reduced energy consumption considerably. 

The design team also searched for benchmark information to guide other aspects 
of the design. For example, the key source of benchmark information for indoor 
air quality was the innovative program developed for the State of Washington. By 
studying the details of the Washington program and analyzing its strengths and 
weaknesses, the group could build directly on earlier efforts and propose a series 
of refinements. 


13 


Design Process Discussion: Design Optimization 


Using Models and Evaluation Tools 

As the design group evaluated options, models and other tools that simulate 
future performance became essential aids to decision making. Computer and 
physical models were used for water quality calculations and air flow modeling in 
the labs. Wind tunnel testing was used to study air dispersion from the exhaust 
stacks outside the labs. These simulation models provided information that led to 
numerous design refinements. 

Modeling Resources 

• “Trace” 5 by the Trane Corporation for energy modeling 

• “Lumen Micro” 6 and physical models for daylighting evaluation 

• “Exposure" an EPA program for indoor air quality 

Modeling, however, can improve the environmental performance of a facility 
only when it informs the design process. Typically design teams employ energy 
modeling for sizing HVAC systems and estimating energy consumption, with little 
or no effort spent on testing alternatives and optimizing performance. When the 
energy model was used as a design tool to optimize performance, modifications 
made to the building design and HVAC systems improved performance from 
substandard, based on DOE benchmark values, to more than 40% better. 

Energy design optimization began with an assessment of baseline energy loads in 
the lab and office components of the building. This was important because the 
load profiles, which were extremely different for the lab and office portions of the 
building, would guide the group to focus on load reduction strategies which 
would have the greatest impact. 


Search for environmental 
benchmarks and performance 
measures. 


Begin energy modeling while 
there is sufficient time for the 
modeling results to inform the 
design process. 


Carefully review engineering design 
criteria as standards have changed 
over time. Oversizing and 
overlighting increases energy use, 
first costs and operating costs. 


Do not rely on “rule of 
thumb” design. 


EPA CAMPUS COMPONENT PEAK LOADS 


As the design was further defined, the energy models required refinement. The 
group reviewed all of the inputs into the energy analysis program and updated 
them with the anticipated operating load profiles. These profiles incorporated 
diversity factors that captured such items as areas of the building not fully occupied 
at the same time, and that reflected “as-used” loads instead of “connected” loads for 
lighting and power. In the office areas, the as-used loads suggested energy savings 
from occupancy sensors, daylight dimming and computer “sleep modes.” In the 
labs, as-used loads factored in the multiple ways the labs are used, such as partial 
combination of occupied and unoccupied labs and night-time airflow setback. 



LABORATORY 
Total Load 64 MillionBtu/Hr 

supply fan 



OFFICE 

Total Load 18 Million Btu/Hr 



23 % 


14 










In 1999, the U.S. Green Building 
Council established the Leadership 
in Energy and Environmental 
Design (LEED) rating system. 

LEED evaluates environmental 
performance from a “whole 
building” perspective over a 
building’s life-cycle. 


When researching environmentally 
preferable building materials, 
gather specific information about 
products by manufacturer, rather 
than generalized information 
about product types, whenever 
possible. 


Computer modeling also was used to create a quality assurance mechanism for 
indoor air quality requirements. A set of emissions thresholds was established based 
on what would be both acceptable and achievable, and predictive modeling was 
performed to confirm that emissions thresholds could be met. Based on that 
predictive modeling, EPA was able to assure prospective contractors that if building 
materials passed the emissions testing requirements, the building would also pass 
baseline indoor air quality testing requirements after construction was complete. 

During the evolution of the new EPA Campus project, several rating systems for 
sustainable buildings emerged. Canada and Great Britain unveiled two of the 
earliest whole-building assessment tools in 1993. Along with fledgling initiatives in 
the U.S., the Netherlands and a handful of other countries, these early rating 
systems helped spark an international effort in 1998 that created the Green 
Building Challenge (GBC). Led by the Canadians, GBC aimed to establish 
international comprehensive benchmarks for environmentally-responsible building 
and site design from an environmental perspective. The new EPA campus was one 
of 30 case studies evaluated by the 14 participating countries in the prototype 
round of GBC. 

In the United States, the U.S. Green Building Council first established its 
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system in 1999. 
LEED evaluates the total environmental performance of a building during all 
phases of its useful life, from construction through demolition. Although LEED 
emerged too late to be of use in designing the main facility on the EPA campus, it 
was applied to the redesign of the National Computer Center-a separate 100,000 
square foot facility on the campus. The computer center has been designed to meet 
the “gold rating criteria under LEED. 

Although the international and national green building standards offer the 
advantage of benchmarking performance based on broad consensus, they do face 
some challenges. For example, it has been difficult to adjust for the local effects of 
climate, markets, transportation infrastructure and other locale-specific factors. 
Recognizing this, a number of communities and regions have brought forward their 
own systems. In the Research Triangle area, the Triangle J Council of Governments 
performed a detailed adaptation of LEED to create their own “High Performance 
Guidelines: Triangle Region Public Facilities” (HPG). EPA’s new campus design 
team helped create the HPG guidelines, which were issued in 2001. The Agency 
will incorporate them, along with LEED, into the EPA/NIEHS child care center 
design-build contract. 

Researching Environmental Impact 

The search for physical solutions to established goals and design criteria led to 
supplemental research to understand the environmental impact and identify 
preferred approaches. In some areas, such as energy and water use, the research 
required proved to be minimal. However in other areas, such as building materials 
selection and specification, extensive research was necessary to develop resources 
that did not yet exist. 

Civil engineers performed feasibility studies to explore cost-effective stormwater 
management options to effectively cleanse runoff, while minimizing site impact. 
The bioretention strategy that was ultimately selected was a relatively new 
approach relying on “pocket wetlands” filled with permeable planting soil and 
plantings to accelerate the natural processing of contaminants suspended in the 
stormwater runoff. Since this technology had never been used in North Carolina 


13 


Design Process Discussion: Design Optimization 







at the time, the civil engineer had to educate regulators in North Carolina about 
successful bioretention systems in Maryland in order to use it on this project. This 
effort helped lead North Carolina officials to adopt bioretention as a Best 
Management Practice for stormwater treatment across the state. 

Other site issues requiring research included native plantings such as wetland and 
wildflower species, alternatives for erosion control, permeable pavement options, 
performance of recycled content roadway materials and re-use of on-site materials. 
Specialty consultants joined the project team to develop the wetland plantings and 
wildflower specifications. Topics were investigated by the civil engineers, who 
applied skepticism, logic and common sense to test the performance of each 
proposed alternative material. 

Environmentally preferable materials selection was a major issue requiring 
extensive research. Early in schematic design, the design team determined that 
although some sources of information were available to guide decision making 
about environmentally preferable products, such as the AIA’s Environmental 
Resource Guide (ERG), manufacturer specific information regarding the 
environmental performance of individual products did not yet exist in any 
published form. 


In response to this information void, the A/E voluntarily initiated an effort to 
gather life-cycle environmental impact information about products. With input 
from experts in the green building field, the A/E developed a product 
questionnaire that was sent to every manufacturer considered for use in the 
project. Response to the questionnaire was good, and the data proved useful in 
defining which products would be the best choices for the EPA project. 

The concept of “materials benchmarking” also added an important dimension to 
the research effort on environmentally preferable building materials. It led the group 
to explore the range of materials and products on the market, and to compare them, 
by developing benchmarks for materials. The research effort eventually extended 
beyond the products and materials to considerations of how the materials were 
installed, when they would be installed and, due to their potential impact on indoor 
air quality, how they would be maintained. This focus on LAQ led to requirements 
for emission testing of selected materials, so the potential impact on indoor air 
quality could be evaluated before materials were installed, rather than later, when 
the cost of removing them or mitigating their effects could be prohibitive. 

In addition to requiring emissions data, the group collected IAQ specifications 
and related information from other projects with an indoor air focus, and 
prudently reviewed them to develop uncomplicated procedures to safeguard IAQ 
during construction. For example, instead of a 90-day “flush out” period which 
would have required the building to remain empty while it was ventilated prior to 
occupancy, the group opted for ventilation during construction. This requirement 
was coupled with IAQ testing to document air quality prior to occupancy, thereby 
ensuring that chemical vapors emitted during construction had been removed and 
air quality in the building met the established indoor air quality standards. 



Environmentally-preferable 
building materials 


Other issues, such as the potential impact of electromagnetic fields on the health 
of building occupants, represented entirely new territory that required extensive 
research. Local issues, such as the details of the recycling infrastructure available in 
North Carolina, required research as this information is regionally specific and 
changes over time. 


The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 


16 












Green Team Core Members 

Although the entire team was 
committed to producing an 
environmentally sound design, 
certain team members had 
especially critical roles in keeping 
the green building effort focused 
and on track. 


Greening the Team 

Even though the design team understood the need to improve the environmental 
performance of the facility, the design process itself involved dozens of people 
working simultaneously on an assortment of tasks. Because of the complexity of the 
design and the variety of demands on all team members, the project leaders worked 
on greening the design team itself, to ensure that the project’s environmental goals 
would not get lost in the process. 


EPA Project Manager 

Responsible for balancing 
environmental goals against the 
pressures of meeting cost, 
performance and schedule 
requirements. 


Unlike most organizations, EPA is fortunate to have its own in-house experts 
on pollution prevention, indoor air quality, energy conservation, recycling and 
a variety of other environmental issues. EPA invited input from these in-house 
experts in planning for the new facility, and the project benefited from their 
insights. The ultimate success of the project, however, would be determined by 
the extent to which EPA could engage all project team members in integrating 
environmental design issues into the creative decision making process. 


EPA Environmental Advocate 

As a member of the EPA project 
management team, had the special 
role of questioning all design 
decisions for their environmental 
merits. 

Environmental Scientist 

As a member of the EPA research 
community and the original 
project officer for the 
Environmental Resources Guide, 
provided expert advice to the 
core design group on a range of 
pollution prevention and 
sustainability issues. 

Indoor Air 
Quality Coordinator 

A mechanical engineer and indoor 
air quality researcher for the EPA; 
oversaw the development of the 
IAQ manual and reviewed the 
design for indoor health impact. 


Environmental Champions on the Team 

While many design team members contributed their expertise and insight 
to the development of environmentally preferable solutions, EPA and the A/E 
each recognized that it was extremely important to have an individual with an 
understanding of the whole “champion” the environmental goals for the project. 
EPA and the A/E each designated an “environmental advocate” to guide the design 
internally, while also reaching out to the local sustainability network for additional 
support. Environmental advocates were tasked with monitoring and supporting 
environmental initiatives incorporated in the design. These advocates searched for 
information that enabled the design team to assess environmental impact, raise 
issues and identify strategies to consider, and facilitate the development of design 
solutions requiring multidisciplinary collaboration. 

Local Sustainability Network 

In addition to the project team that had been assembled to design the new EPA 
Campus, many others contributed throughout the process. A community of 
people involved with issues relating to sustainable design and green buildings 
provided crucial voluntary assistance. These independent resources in the design, 
academic and nonprofit communities provided valuable input. For example, 
volunteers linked the group with local recycling resources, identified successful 
demonstration projects that could serve as models, and assisted the A/E with 
technical information relating to emerging issues such as design for good indoor 
air quality and environmentally preferable materials selection. 


Project Engineers 

The EPA’s lead technical staff; 
directed the actual 
implementation of green design 
decisions. 

A/E “Green Team” Leader 

As part of the lead architectural 
firm, had the task of assuring the 
environmental soundness of the 
complete range of architectural 
and engineering choices made on 
the project. 


EPA also organized a voluntary committee from within its own ranks called the 
Pollution Prevention Committee, to support the design effort. Meetings were held 
early during schematic design, which led to the creation of an extensive list of 
green design strategies to be considered. Some of the members of this group 
remained involved as advisors to EPA to assist during design reviews. The 
Pollution Prevention Committee was a great mechanism for broadening 
involvement and generating ideas that spanned many disciplines. 

Integrated Team Approach 

Recognizing that optimal sustainable design strategies rely on synergy achieved 
when one solution addresses multiple objectives, the design team collaborated by 
physically working together. Work sessions and design reviews included EPA, the 
A/E and its consultants. Though this collaboration required the group to spend 
more time in meetings, the design process as a whole became more efficient. 


17 


Design Process Discussion: Greening the Team 


Design integration leads to more optimal solutions, reduces backtracking and 
relieves the need to spend extensive amounts of time “coordinating” the various 
disciplines after the fact. 


Identify environmental champions 
on both the owner and the A/E 
teams. 


For example, architects, interior designers, mechanical/electrical/plumbing (MEP) 
engineers, civil engineers and others needed to collaborate closely to create a site 
plan and building massing that would balance a diverse set of functional and 
environmental goals. Interior designers provided input on site orientation and 
building massing based on how it would impact future interior planning and 
daylight access. MEP and civil engineers integrated issues that might otherwise have 
been deemed secondary, related to site infrastructure, underground utilities and 
fire lanes. The “integrated” design scheme worked within the existing site contours, 
allowing large portions of the site to remain forested and preserved wetland areas. 

Another benefit of the integrated approach was that non-experts included in 
design discussions could offer a fresh perspective. For example, when water quality 
ponds emerged as the strategy of choice for stormwater treatment because of 
greater effectiveness, lower cost and use of natural methods to purify the water, the 
engineers did not focus on the impact that the pond would have on the landscape. 
Though the ponds were not large, the grading necessary to direct runoff toward 
them would have altered much of the landscape and required tree clearing for 
vast portions of the site. In one of the regularly scheduled design meetings, a 
nontechnical person asked the obvious question: “Look how many trees are being 
cut down to ‘save the environment’ isn’t there a better way?” This fresh perspective 
led to a reinvestigation of options and to the less disruptive “pocket wetland” 
bioretention method that was adopted. 


Maintaining the Commitment 

The challenge for any project, regardless of the investment of energy into careful 
project planning and team building, is the follow through. The effort spent 
defining goals, evaluating options and performing analysis to identify the best 
integrated design solution can all be lost in one misdirected value engineering 
session. Likewise, for a successful project, the construction detailing and 
specifications must be developed to support the environmental design strategies. 
Performance tracking, green value engineering and partnering for construction 
were other strategies that proved to be instrumental in maintaining a focus on 
the environmental goals for the facility. 

Following Through on the Details 

Specifications and construction details are “conventional” by their very nature, 
because design professionals protect themselves from risk by relying on methods 
that have worked successfully in the past. Specifications and details are also heavily 
influenced by third parties. Material suppliers can limit or revoke warranties if 
manufacturers’ recommendations are not followed. Equally true, however, is the 
fact that specifications and construction details continuously evolve in response to 
innovations and changing requirements. The challenge was to direct review toward 
more sustainable solutions. Each modification to conventional practice required 
extensive investigation to ensure that no element of building performance would 
be compromised. 

Specifications not only document choices about which materials are to be used, 
but also provide information about secondary materials such as adhesives and 
finishes. In some cases, options were provided and the specifier simply needed to 


Identify local groups 
dedicated to sustainable design 
that can provide information or 
design assistance. 



Clearly describe performance 
requirements in the specifications, 
and require submittals to certify 
that requirements have been met. 


Review the specifications with an 
eye to making environmental 
performance improvements 
wherever possible. 


Use Division One of the 
specifications to summarize 
atypical environmental 
performance requirements. 


When developing specifications, 
consider the environmental and 
IAQ impact of adhesives and 
finishes, as well as the specific 
materials. 


The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 


18 






Track the development of 
contract documents thoroughly 
to ensure successful inclusion of 
environmental design features. 


choose the option that was environmentally-preferable. For example, nearly every 
flooring manufacturer either makes a zero-VOC adhesive, or has approved one, 
though they may still carry the old higher-solvent formulations. In other cases, 
such as the high performance finishes required in the laboratory environment, 
research was needed to identify alternatives to finishes that are standard in the 
industry, but factory applied. 

The team also anticipated challenges that might occur during construction. 

By painstakingly defining environmental performance requirements and the 
submittals required, alternate products proposed for substitution were screened 
for environmental performance. 

Division One of the contract specifications was developed specifically to highlight 
unusual environmental requirements. Division One of the specifications contains 
the project General Conditions, key non-technical requirements for the prime and 
all subcontractors. By summarizing environmental requirements in this initial 
section as well as in the technical provisions that follow, EPA was assured that the 
contractor understood the environmental requirements from a “big picture’’ 
perspective. A new section. Environmental Impact of Materials, was created to 
diminish the possibility that either contractors or subcontractors could 
misunderstand environmental requirements. Cross-referencing between this 
section and the individual specification sections provided clear and consistent 
documentation of environmental requirements. 

Unique specification sections were developed for Division One to clarify atypical 
construction procedures. At the beginning of the project manual, a section entitled 
Environmental Requirements, simply describes EPA’s environmental goals for the 
project. The section begins with the following statement: “It is the goal of the EPA 
to integrate the Agency’s mission into this project as much as feasible and practical; 
i.e., to construct a green building.’ Other Division One sections include Testing for 
Indoor Air Quality, Baseline IAQ and Materials; Sequence of Installation Finishes; and 
Waste Material Management and Recycling. Detailed commissioning requirements 
are located in the mechanical and electrical sections to ensure that the building will 
operate properly, and that energy savings will be realized. 

Tracking Environmental Performance 

The core design group found that mechanisms to track environmental 
performance were especially essential in the later phases of the project. The 
number of decisions made on a daily basis would multiply as the project moved 
into the final stages of design. Tracking environmental design strategies helped 
highlight the “non-standard” features requiring special attention. 

The tracking process involved ongoing design review as well as periodic 
reporting. A detailed report issued at the end of Design Development itemized all 
environmental features incorporated into the design. The report was organized by 
design topics: Site Design, Energy Conservation, Water Conservation, Building 
Materials, Indoor Air Quality and Waste Management. The design strategies 
suggested by EPA’s Pollution Prevention Committee were tracked in the report as 
well as additional issues identified along the way. The report contained an energy 
budget, which predicted future energy costs through computer modeling, and a 
description of all of the energy conserving features of the design. This report, 
updated and reissued at key milestones, led to a series of itemized checklists that 
were distributed to project team members from each discipline. 


19 


Design Process Discussion: Maintaining the Commitment 


Summary of VE cost savings during the Design Development phase 


ITEM 

STRATEGY 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

BENEFIT 

CONSTRUCTION 
COST SAVINGS 

LIFE CYCLE 
COST IMPACT 

Roadways and 

Utility Lines 

Depart from federal site master plan requirements for 
4-lane roads plus utility easements; design 2-lane roads and 
bury electrical and communication lines under the road 

Greatly decreased road and 

1 utility footprint - preserving site 
woodlands and wetlands 

$2 million 

Less maintenance 
and repair cost 

Stormwater 

Replace curb and gutter and oil-grit separators with 
grassy swales, water quality ponds and bioretention 

Improved on-site treatment 
of stormwater 

$500,000 

No increase or decrease 

Atrium Skylight 

Revise from all glass to one third glass, one third 
insulated translucent panels and one third solid 

Improved energy performance and indoor 
environment-thermal comfort 
and light quality 

$500,000 

Lower energy cost 
($50,000 / year) 

Laboratory 

Exhaust Hoods 

Install 250 specialized fume hoods and exhaust systems 
that reduce total air flow demand by 50% and eliminate 
dozens of fans 

Prevents consumption of large 
qualities of conditioned air 

$ 1.5 million 

Lower energy cost 
($1 million / year) 


While the checklists served as a reminder of the decisions that had been agreed 
upon, design reviews were also necessary to correct misunderstandings that would 
emerge. For example, at one point late in the construction documentation phase, 
it was discovered that a lighting designer had introduced a large quantity of 
inefficient incandescent light sources in the entry lobby of the main facility to 
make the space feel “warmer.” The design team had worked hard to develop a 
pleasing, energy efficient, lighting scheme. When it was brought to the group’s 
attention, the interior designers clarified that although fluorescent lighting may 
have seemed unconventional in a lobby space in the past, color rendition of 
compact fluorescent lamps had improved tremendously. If necessary, the 
coloration of the space would be fine-tuned by adjusting the stain on the wood 
panels and the paint on the walls. As a result, the construction documents were 
changed and the fluorescent lighting was maintained. 

Using Green Value Engineering 

Throughout the design process, the issue of cost, and particularly the cost of 
green design strategies, was scrutinized judiciously. In addition to ongoing analysis 
of options by the cost consultant and a member of the core design group, EPA 
chose to engage in focused Value Engineering (VE) reviews. VE is often seen as 
the enemy of good design in general and green design in particular. At its best 
however, VE is not merely a cost-cutting exercise, but a review process to enhance 
“value.” EPA used the VE process to balance cost, function and environmental 
performance when considering options. 

The VE process became especially important when extraordinary challenges 
were introduced by the political process that is unique to the design of a large 
government facility. When the U.S. Senate was considering appropriations for the 
new facility, they asked EPA to review the project again to see if the total cost 
could be significantly reduced. This challenged VE participants to produce creative 
cost reductions without compromising functionality, reducing program area or 
compromising environmental goals. The core design group not only reduced the 
total project cost by approximately $30 million, but the VE cost-reduction exercise 
produced a greener building. 


Encourage theVE process to 
balance cost, function and 
environmental performance. 

Include designers and 
environmental advocates on 
the VE review team. 


The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 


20 


Encourage the development 
of VE proposals by interdisciplinary 
teams to promote integrated design 
solutions. 


One reason the VE sessions were so successful was that the inclusive process 
allowed for informed, interdisciplinary brainstorming to occur. Led by a special 
VE group of the Army Corps of Engineers, the design team, participated in the 
brainstorming of VE proposals, ensuring that the finer points of the design were 
not overlooked. Together, we worked to save money retain the functional needs 
and keep the project green all at once. 

Given the tremendous pressure to reduce the first costs of the design, it is 
surprising that many of the environmental features that required a first-cost 
investment remained. Fortunately, the team recognized the importance of looking 
at the project and the budget as a whole, not simply line by line. While energy 
and water conservation, and materials minimization would be economically 
justifiable, either in terms of first costs or life-cycle costs, other environmentally 
beneficial strategies would not provide an immediate dollar payback. By 
considering value broadly and making design trade-offs in other areas, EPA 
justified design decisions that might never have survived purely economic scrutiny, 
such as the use of certified sustainably-harvested wood. 



Educate all members of the 
construction team about the 
project environmental goals. 


Encourage contractor to join the 
project as a partner, and contribute 
to development of creative, 
environmental design solutions 
during the construction phase. 


The VE modifications are interesting to study both for what they contain as well 
as for what they do not contain. Difficult choices were made, and the trade-offs 
reflect the values of EPA. For example, EPA replaced the slate flooring in the 
public areas with ceramic tile, but chose not to delete humidification from the 
office buildings, because it would contribute to occupant comfort over the long 
term. Rather than delete occupancy sensors, which save energy by turning off lights 
when people leave their offices, EPA decided to omit doors on suite entryways. 
Rather than use wood paneling that was not from independently-certified 
sustainable sources, the group chose to reduce the amount of wood paneling, 
using it in small quantities in public areas. Sidelights, which bring daylight into 
the interior closed offices, were also maintained by making similar tradeoffs. 

One of the most important VE issues involved the decision to keep structured 
parking rather than all surface parking. This decision alone represented several 
million dollars that might have been spent on the facility, however, it emphasized 
the undeterred commitment to value the site environment. EPA felt strongly that 
use of all deck parking, which would have required the clearing of an additional 
15 acres of land, disrupted wetland areas and existing drainage patterns, and 
eliminated nearly all tree coverage on the site, was not acceptable. To compensate 
for the cost impact of the decision, the quantity of on-site parking was reduced by 
25%, and EPA made a strong commitment to create incentives for 
employees to use alternative transportation. 

Preparing for Construction 

Recognizing the size and complexity of the new campus, EPA selected the 
GSA as construction manager for the project, due to their expertise with 
large-scale construction. 

Unfortunately, when the construction procurement was initially advertised and 
competitively bid, the bid prices exceeded the project budget. This raised the 
question, “Did the bids come in higher because of the environmental 
requirements?” 


EPA and GSA invited the bidders to comment on what could be done to 
reduce the cost of the project. It is interesting to note that only two of the many 
comments received were related to environmental features of the design. One 
contractor commented that the “wet sponge method” for finishing drywall, which 


21 


Design Process Discussion: Maintaining the Commitment 




was specified to protect construction workers and the building from silica dust 
released into the air with dry sanding, added 50% to the cost of the gypsum board 
installation. In the end, a conventional gypsum finishing method was permitted, 
since a requirement by the contractor to seal off ductwork during gypsum 
finishing, and to clean the ductwork prior to building acceptance would already 
ensure dust-free ventilation systems. A phased installation sequence would also 
keep carpet out of work areas until dusty wallboard work was complete. 

The other comment that EPA received from the contractors related to the detailed 
emissions testing of material assemblies. Originally all materials that would have a 
potential impact on LAQ were to be tested. It was expected that the cost of testing, 
an extremely small portion of overall cost, would be borne by manufacturers eager 
to participate in the project. Faced with budget concerns, and the fear expressed 
by contractors that the procedure could get lengthy and complicated, the 
specification was revised on the basis of relative contribution to the office air 
zones. Four assemblies which presented the greatest exposed surface areas were 
tested for emission potential-wall paint, acoustical ceiling tile, spray-on 
fireproofing and carpet. This change reduced the paperwork burden and much of 
the perceived risk for contractors while allowing EPA to retain stringent 
environmental constraints on the materials used in the project. 

Though the economic analysis and information from contractors indicated 
otherwise, there was tremendous temptation to remove many of the green 
specifications from the project because of the concern that they were related to the 
cost overrun. Fortunately the group had addressed cost issues throughout the design 
process, and the research on the cost and availability of environmentally-preferable 
materials was well documented. Except for the two issues previously noted, the green 
specification was maintained in the next set of construction documents. 

The project’s actual bid price compares favorably with government industry and 
academic facilities of similar scope. The design team’s research efforts and practical 
approach had kept the cost of the green design well within industry standards. 

When GSA selected a general contractor, a new member and potential collaborator 
joined the team. At this time, the A/E introduced a construction administration 
team that contained some new players, though the environmental advocate roles 
Were maintained. 

The final preparatory phase prior to construction involved a partnering session to 
focus the newly formed construction team on working together to enhance safety, 
quality and environmental performance. The session included a presentation of 
the environmental goals for the facility and a viewing of a training video on 
environmentally friendly construction practices created especially for this project. 
The video was required viewing for every construction worker on the site to teach 
the construction team about environmentally-sensitive practices during construction 
and to explain its importance. The expectation was that construction workers and 
managers, inspired by the goals of the project, would be motivated to become 
willing partners in the creation of an environmentally-friendly construction site. 

The signed partnering charter included a commitment by all parties to 
environmental, safety and quality goals. 


The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 


22 



Conclusion 

When EPA and its partners began the long process of designing and constructing 
this project, sustainable buildings were in their infancy. Reference material for 
architects, engineers and builders was extremely limited, and few green building 
case studies had been documented. The design team did not let this stand in the 
way of its goal. 

In the absence of a full set of tools and resources, the design team recognized that 
creating a sustainable campus would require a new process based on a new way of 
thinking. The commitment to question, research and evaluate every possible 
component of the building process was the key to making their goal a reality. 

Early on, the group embraced the commitment to a sustainable process and 
upheld it throughout design and construction. 


The success of this project was based on the strong emphasis on environmental 
quality that has traditionally been placed only on cost and functional performance. 
Just as our focus on cost helps us realize better value in everyday life, the 
environmental consciousness of the EPA project has yielded an improved value in 
the construction of the campus. This represents a shift in thinking that is much 
more significant than any individual tool or reference material. 


During the past decade, there have been huge advances in sustainable building. 
Through this project and others, the building industry is learning about 
sustainability and incorporating it into its work. Advancements are likely and it is 
EPA’s challenge to stay abreast of new technologies and practices as they relate to 
managing and operating the Campus. The design team recognized this need and 
left room for improvements to be made. For example, heat recovery units for the 
lab exhaust system were not justified by meager energy savings, but space was 
accommodated in the laboratory penthouses so they could be added in the future 
if costs become competitive. 


EPA has continued to set aggressive goals for sustainability, seek fresh ideas, gauge 
progress and make improvements. Without the momentum of construction it 
might be hard to maintain this focus, so the EPA Campus team has taken a few 
steps to avoid complacency. To unearth new innovations, an advisory committee 
now focuses on sustainable 
building and site operations. EPA 
has also worked out an agreement 
with the local power company to 
install solar-powered street lights, 
and has arranged for two local bus 
systems to pick up and drop off at 
the front door of the Campus. 

With construction complete, 

EPA’s goal will be to operate the 
facility in an environmentally 
responsible manner. 



With a dedication to continual learning and a commitment to constant improvement 
throughout the life of this facility, EPA will continue to advance sustainable building 
concepts and preserve the strong educational value of the campus. 


23 


Design Process Discussion: Conclusion 












DESIGN ISSUES 
DISCUSSION 


Site Design 

While the challenges of environmentally-sensitive site design for projects located in 
urban, suburban or rural settings vary and the solutions can differ, the overall issues 
are largely the same. These issues involve disruption and displacement of wildlife 
habitat, increased erosion, diminished ground water recharge and threats to the 
water quality of surface water bodies and aquifers. 

Minimize Site Disruption 

The issue for the EPA in RTP was not where to build its new facility, but how to 
best build on its land. The site, an undeveloped tract of abandoned farm land, had 
been deeded to the federal government in 1968 for federal environmental research 
facilities. Site features include a man-made lake, a wooded knoll, a pine and 
hardwood forest and wetlands. The site’s elevation varies considerably and the 
rolling topography creates distinct ridges and valleys that drain into the lake. 
Low-lying areas and drainage swales support mature hardwoods and wetlands, 
which contrast with a densely wooded knoll, sixty feet higher at the site’s center. 

The primary challenge of the site design for the EPA Campus was to accommodate 
the needs of the building and sitework within the existing ecosystem with a 
minimum of disruption. After a thorough evaluation of the site’s natural features, 
topography and hydrological systems, the EPA project team developed a site plan 
that would reduce large scale disruptions and protect some of the site’s unique 
natural assets. The plan limited the size of the development footprint and controlled 
other site components such as underground utility lines, and construction grading 
and staging areas. 

Following conceptual design, a decision was made to expand the 64-acre parcel 
of land originally set aside for the project to 133 acres. This did not require the 
acquisition of additional land since the original site, deeded to the government in 
1968, was approximately 500 acres. Half of the land had been developed by the 
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences with the other half reserved for 
EPA. At the same time, the design was changed from a three-story campus to a 
series of three- to six-story buildings to minimize the total building footprint. 

The final design for the EPA Campus organized laboratory and office buildings 
and the accompanying site infrastructure within existing site contours. This 
reduced the building’s impact on forest, wetlands, wildlife habitats and drainage 
patterns, by greatly reducing the need for regrading at the building perimeter. The 
high point, a wooded knoll at the center of the site, was preserved intact and was 
highlighted by the entry drive that encircles it. The use of structured parking 
decreased the overall size of the development footprint. In addition, EPA’s 
commitment to carpooling and alternative means of transportation reduced the 
parking requirement by hundreds of spaces. Site utilities and emergency access 
lanes were carefully routed to be near the building and within areas that were 
already disrupted for roadway construction. 


Key Issues to Consider 

• Rehabilitate an existing site or 
redevelop an urban infill site, 
when possible 

• Develop compact massing to 
preserve open space 

• Preserve natural vegetation, 
water sources and topography 

• Preserve and enhance wildlife 
habitat 

• Consider use of pervious paving 
materials to minimize 
impervious coverage of the site 

• Consult with site analysis 
drawings and tree surveys 
before beginning design 

• Plan to save trees during and 
after construction 



EPA site before construction 


The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 


24 


Statistics 

Site: 133 acres 
Building: 10.05 acres 
Paved Areas: 16.9 acres 





Structured Parking 

Parking decks and public transportation are two approaches for preserving green 
space and limiting dependence on the automobile. Two factors typically drive the 
selection of structured parking: construction costs and space limitations. The unit 
cost for structured parking is typically about four times the unit cost for surface 
parking. In addition, land is readily available in RTP and the zoning codes permit 
nearly unrestricted use for parking. Consequently, the project team’s specification of 
structured parking represented a departure from standard practice in the RTP area. 


-r 

~ t 

r* 

r* 

* 


100% surface parking study 


Site plan of final parking design 
with both structured and surface 
parking 


However, a study of an “all-surface” parking alternative revealed that the cost of 
surface parking on the site would be a little higher than average because of the need 
for additional grading, retaining walls and stormwater management. The all-surface 
parking scheme would have covered an additional eight acres, requiring greater 
forest clearing and disrupting drainage patterns and wetlands. Though the all¬ 
surface parking scheme would save several million dollars, EPA opted for the more 
compact design, which would use a mix of surface and structured parking. 

To offset some of these costs, EPA reduced the overall parking requirements by 
about 25 percent. To minimize the impact of reduced parking on employees, 

EPA is creating incentives for carpooling and is exploring alternative means of 
transportation. Easy access to public transit systems has also been provided. The 
decked parking actually provided better service to employees and visitors by 
bringing more parking closer to the buildings. 

Fire Lanes 

Fire lanes are required by code to provide fire truck access to all parts of the 
Campus’ buildings. While essential for safety, fire lanes have the potential to wreak 
havoc on tree-preservation strategies. These access lanes generally require a clear, 
level and permanently unobstructed zone that is a minimum of 36 feet wide and 10 
feet away from the building. If the fire lane is not a continuous loop, turnaround 
areas that are at least 100 feet in diameter must be provided. 

To reduce the impact, the EPA project team worked closely with the local fire 
marshal to develop a plan to meet all requirements and minimize site disruption. 


25 


Design Issue Discussion: Site Design 













The plan calls for the development of roadways on the entry side of the site for fire 
truck access and a grass paving system for most of the fire lanes to the west, so that 
total impervious surface on site could be minimized. 

Erosion Control 

Reducing the loss of valuable topsoil was particularly important on the EPA site, 
not only to protect on-site streams but also the man-made lake from sedimentation. 
Developed in accordance with North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control 
requirements, EPA’s erosion control plan included specifications to guide construction 
and maintenance of the erosion control features. Plan measures included tree protection 
devices, temporary perimeter diversions and sediment traps or basins, and silt curtains 
across lake inlets. The plan also specified dust control measures and required the 
stabilization of disturbed areas with temporary seeding. Topsoil removed from the site 
and stockpiled for reuse was temporarily seeded. 

Site planners and civil engineers worked closely with the rest of the project team to 
develop an erosion control plan that is integrated with the design, and meets the 
overall environmental goals for the project. When details of EPA’s erosion control 
plan were reviewed, it was determined that the standard list of materials approved 
by the state for stabilization of temporary coverage included some materials, such 
as asphaltic tackifier, that were undesirable from an environmental perspective. 

The specification was revised to allow only biodegradable, nontoxic substances to 
be used for soil stabilization, and to require the use of 100% recycled content 
hydromulch in the seeding around all Campus buildings. 

Loop Road 

The 1970 U.S. Public Health Service Research Park Master Plan, that addressed the 
entire 511 -acre campus in RTP, specified a four-lane loop road to provide access to 
all buildings. The plan also identified an underground utility loop fully accessible 
for maintenance and repairs, built outside the roadways on both sides. To 
implement the master plan’s design would have required clearing a 235-foot wide 
swath of trees about one mile long. 



View of existing lake on the EPA/NIEHS site prior to construction 


The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 


26 












The project team questioned the master plan requirements for the four-lane loop 
road as being both extremely costly and disruptive to the natural environment. 
Detailed traffic studies demonstrated that a two-lane road would be more than 
adequate to handle traffic flows. Based on both the cost and negative environmental 
impact of the four-lane road, the design was changed to include a two-lane road. 
Electrical and communication lines were moved under the roadway, further 
reducing the required clearing. Combined with land-conserving parking decks and 
tight construction clearing limits, the roadway redesign required less than half the 
amount of clearing, saving 25 acres of forest. The narrowed roads cost $1.6 million 
less-which offset much of the cost premium for decked parking. 

Preservation and Enhancement of Wetland Areas 

The existing site drains into a man-made lake, with more than nine acres of wetland 
areas occurring in the zone where the drainage swales meet the lake. To protect these 
wetlands, a buffer zone approximately 100 feet wide was established along the lake 
edge. No development was allowed in this buffer zone except for a network of 
walking and jogging trails. 

One exception was necessary at the sites northern edge, where the site narrows. Here, 
the new loop road disturbed 0.13-acre of wetland area. To compensate for the lost 
wetlands, the project team chose to enlarge a 0.024-acre wetland to almost an acre in 
size. The enlargement created almost seven times more wetlands than were lost. It also 
provides a “naturalist garden” for the Campus. 

Specimen Tree Study 

A tree survey is an important first step when designing and building on a wooded 
site, however a survey alone is not sufficient. An integrated, “green” approach to 
siting requires the entire project team, civil engineers as well as architects, to 
consider specimen trees during the formative stages of scheme design. In this case, 
the schematic design for the roadway to the EPA Campus was completed before the 
tree survey was consulted, and the result was a design in which the main entry drive 
for the facility would have destroyed many of the most mature trees on the site. 

In the end, however, the roads were redesigned to save several large oak trees. 

The preserved area now forms a natural gateway to the site and serves as a living 
reminder of the homesteads that stood there in the early part of the 20th century. 
The “near miss” with the oak trees had a surprising side effect, making these historic 
trees a symbol to the EPA project team of the importance of designing with nature. 

Water Quality 

All construction sites impact their watersheds, affecting both surface and subsurface 
water quality. Water contaminants from a typical building site include nutrients 
from fertilizers and toxic chemicals, pesticides used on landscaped areas, 
hydrocarbons from roadways and parking lots and sediment from soil erosion. 

The EPA Campus has been developed to protect water quality. The man-made lake 
and wetland areas on the site act as pre-existing water quality features to control 

collection and filtration before water is released downstream to Burden’s Creek. 

Even though the EPA Campus only affects a small portion of the 511 -acre 
watershed, the use of highly effective stormwater runoff control measures reduces 
downstream impacts within the basin. 

in circumference. 


runoff and filter contaminants. These have been supplemented by a new water 
quality pond and ten biofiltration sites to provide stormwater retention, sediment 



Site plan with four-lane road 



Site plan with two-lane road 



The largest oak tree on site is 12 feet 


27 


Design Process: Water Quality 







Pollution Prevention Strategies 

Many of the design decisions for the new EPA Campus, contribute to improved 
water quality through pollution prevention. These pollution prevention strategies 
include the use of low maintenance landscaping that relies on native and adapted 
species and reduces the need for fertilizers and pesticides. Incentives for carpooling 
and mass transit coupled with reductions in parking will lower traffic density, 
thereby reducing airborne hydrocarbon and particulate contaminants. Parking 
decks, grass paving for emergency access roads, and mulch pathways for nature trails 
further reduce the total amount of impervious surface and help reduce runoff. The 
facility also meets all National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 
permitting requirements. 

Erosion Control 

Erosion control for the EPA Campus was designed according to North Carolina 
requirements, which require measures including sediment traps and silt fences to 
retain coarse sediment during construction, operations and maintenance. These 
measures are essential to protect the on-site lake from sedimentation. As 
enhancements to the State’s mandates, additional filtration measures were added to 
trap fine clay particles. During construction, an experimental gypsum treatment 
process was used periodically to accelerate settling of the clay, improving the 
effectiveness of the sediment ponds. 

Water Pretreatment Options 

Runoff from roadway and parking areas contains hydrocarbon and particulate 
contaminants as well as heavy metals such as mercury. A common stormwater 
treatment method is to capture these contaminants in a physical device such as an 
oil-grit separator to “pre-treat” the water before it leaves the site. Oil-grit separators 
were considered for the EPA Campus but ultimately not selected because other 
strategies were discovered with higher contaminant removal efficiency, lower cost 
and lower maintenance requirements. 

The strategy preferred by the project team was one in which concentrated flows are 
collected and treated in small bioretention areas. These areas are distributed around 
the site in ten different locations. In the collection step, grassy swales at the edges of 
paved areas are used instead of curbs and gutters to channel the water to the 
bioretention areas. These swales encourage runoff to “sheet flow” over vegetated 
areas, naturally filtering contaminants suspended in the runoff as the water passes 
through the vegetation and percolates through the soil. Larger water quality ponds 
at the northern and southern ends of the site serve as additional cleansing devices 
for areas not served by bioretention ponds. These bioretention facilities and water 
quality ponds were also designed as aesthetic enhancements to the site. 

The realities of the site, however, required that the use of swales be balanced with 
other priorities. Curbs and gutters were still used in small areas where absolutely 
necessary to prevent extensive tree clearing or to control traffic. 

The bioretention areas use subsurface compost and plantings to accelerate the 
filtering of contaminants, while water quality ponds retain stormwater in 
constructed ponds filled with wetland plantings that cleanse the water. Water quality 
ponds were not selected as the primary solution because they require a larger 
amount of tree clearing than the smaller bioretention areas, which can be tucked 
into areas already being cleared for roadway construction. The water quality pond, 
however, can accommodate a larger quantity of runoff. The pond at the south end 
of the site has a storage capacity of one-half acre-feet of water (160,000 gallons). 


Key Issues to Consider 

• Work with natural drainage 
systems 

• Minimize the use of impervious 
paved surfaces 

• Plan on-site stormwater 
retention where natural 
filtration is insufficient 

• Protect existing water 
sources from soil erosion or 
other sources of contamination 

• Maximize use of passive and 
natural methods for treating 
stormwater, such as sheet 
flow across vegetated areas 
and bioretention 


What is an NPDES Permit? 

Because sediment is recognized as 
a significant pollutant that results 
from construction activity, NPDES 
permits are required for all 
construction sites larger than 
five acres in size. To comply with 
permitting requirements, erosion 
controls are required prior to and 
during construction, and 
stormwater management practices 
are required after construction. 


What is Non-Point Source 
Water Pollution? 

Any source of water pollution or 
pollutants not associated with a 
discrete conveyance, including 
runoff from fields, forest lands, 
mining, construction activity and 
saltwater intrusion. 


28 


The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 


Oil-Grit Separator 

A three-chamber underground 
structure which uses gravity to 
separate the grit and oils from the 
water.The grit and sediment in the 
runoff settle to the bottom of the 
first chamber of an oil-grit 
separator. In the second chamber, 
the oils rise to the top and are 
trapped in the chamber by an 
inverted pipe, which draws water 
from the bottom of the chamber. 
The third chamber then 
discharges the “cleaned” runoff. 



Bioretention 

A depressed, heavily vegetated 
area using plants and soils to 
remove pollutants from 
stormwater runoff.Various 
physical and biological processes 
including absorption, transpiration, 
filtration and decomposition occur 
in the root zone to improve water 
quality (see Bioretention diagram). 


SHEET FLOW 

PAVEMENT 


YARD 

INLET 


GROUND COVER 
OR MULCH LAYER 


MAXIMUM 
PONDED 
WATER DEPTH 
(6 INCHES) 


GRASS 

BUFFER 


l'-0” ■ 
MIN. 


SAND 

BED 



Bioretention diagram 


Landscaping 

Low maintenance landscaping provides one of the most cost-effective opportunities 
for sustainable design. By choosing plants tolerant of native soils, climate and water 
availability, irrigation systems are simplified or eliminated and the associated 
maintenance and irrigation costs are reduced. 

The landscape plantings selected for the EPA Campus represent a cross section of 
plants that are either native or adapted to the region, and drought tolerant. Plant health 
will be maintained through the use of compost and organic mulches prepared on site. 

Low-Maintenance Landscaping 

The new plantings for the EPA Campus are either native species or species that can 
survive the local climate, soils and water availability. This minimizes the need for 
fertilizers, pesticides and irrigation. Because of this reliance on native and adapted 
plantings, a “quick coupler” irrigation system has been provided as a low-cost and 
appropriate alternative to a fully automatic irrigation system. The quick coupler can 
be connected to hose bibs at intervals throughout the site to irrigate new plants 
during their period of establishment and to assist during periods of extreme drought. 


Water Quality Pond 

A permanent pool of water used 
for treating stormwater runoff. 
Water quality is achieved by 
gravitational settling, algal settling, 
wetland plant uptake and bacterial 
decomposition. 



An exception to this approach was made in the main building entry plaza for 
plantings in the raised planter beds. These planters provide a non-permanent 
landscape that may include some “exotics.” Accent plantings on the main entry 
plaza will be irrigated with an automated drip irrigation system. The drip irrigation 
system provides a highly water-efficient solution for these small, localized areas 
which will require irrigation. 

Grasses and Wildflowers 

Instead of using traditional turf grass, the 15 acres of land along the road will be 
planted with wildflowers and native warm season grasses. These wildflowers and 
grasses are available in five palettes of color and species. A detailed wildflower 
specification identifies species and quantities of seed for each palette, with a 
schedule that will establish a permanent colony over a three-year period. The 
specification includes seeding directions for spring and fall plantings, 
environmentally acceptable herbicides and biodegradable soil retention blankets. 

This low-maintenance alternative will add diversity and attract wildlife while 
requiring mowing with a “bush hog” only once a year to control woody vegetation. 


29 


Design Process: Landscaping 






































Wetland Plantings 

A total of 0.154 acres of wetland area will be disturbed by construction: 0.13 acres 
from an unavoidable road cut and 0.024 acres when wetland area is converted into a 
larger wetland pond. When complete, the new pond plus the remediated wetland 
areas will comprise almost an acre of new wetlands. Once the wetland pond has been 
established, an underground transfer pipe will allow water to flow to the lake and 
back, controlling water levels in the pond. It is anticipated that the pond will need 
minimal annual maintenance to control forest succession and weedy overgrowth. 

Just as the undisturbed forested knoll at the center of the entry drive creates a public 
identity for the facility, the wetland pond on the lake side of the site will form a 
human-scaled, private sanctuary. The small pond with a naturalist garden of wetland 
plantings will underscore the value of wetland environments. 

Composting 

Plant health can be greatly improved by the use of compost and organic mulches. 
The project team made plans to incorporate these resources throughout the life of 
the facility. 


Key Issues to Consider 

• Select plantings with minimal 
irrigation, fertilization and 
pesticide needs 

• Plant native species 

• Protect and enhance wildlife 
habitat 

• Compost food waste and 
landscaping debris on site 

• Consider alternatives to turf 
grass where appropriate 


Representative Plant Mix 

Wildflowers 

Black-eyed Susan, Purple 
Coneflower, California Ox-eye 
Daisy,Yellow Cosmos,Toadflax, 
Cosmos, California Poppy, 
Tickseed, Moss Verbena, 
Perennial Lupine 

Tall Grasses 

Indian Grass, Little Bluestem 
Purpletop, Sideoats Grama, 

Blue Grama 

Wetland Plantings 

Arrow Arum, Lizard Tail,Tussock 
Sedge, Sweetflag, Blue Flag Iris 

Wetland Meadow Plantings 

Broomsedge, New York Aster, 
Switch Grass, Little Blue Stem 



Wildflowers attract wildlife 


The specifications stipulated that 
during construction, land that required 
clearing would first be logged for 
valuable timber, and then the 
remaining debris would be shredded 
in a tub grinder to create mulch for 
future use on the site. This is in 
contrast to the prevailing practices in 
this region, where it is typical for 
landscape scrap to be piled high and 
burned. Mulch stockpiled on site has 
been aged for use in finish landscaping. 
Some of the mulch has been mixed 



Wetland plants 


The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 


30 















Benefits of Composting 

• Transportation of organic 
waste from landscaping and 
food preparation of the site is 
eliminated or minimized 

• Biodegradable waste is not 
stored in landfills, where it 
would be mixed with 
inorganic and often toxic 
wastes and prevented from 
biodegrading 

• A renewable source of 
organic fertilizer for 
landscaping is created on site 

• Plant fertilizers need not be 
transported to the site 


Key Issues to Consider 

• Optimize building insulation 

• Optimize building glazing 

• Incorporate exterior shading 
and sun control 

• Evaluate impact of interior 
sunshading 

• Minimize air infiltration 

• Provide adequate air barrier 
and vapor retarder 

• Minimize unintentional or 
uncontrolled thermal bridges 

• Use light-colored roofing 


directly into the topsoil, where the decomposed material will aerate and amend 
the soil for more productive plant growth. Cafeteria waste at the Campus is also 
composted and used for landscaping on site. 


Building Envelope 

Improvements to the building envelope typically provide the first line of defense in 
energy-efficient design strategies. Sunshading, insulation, a tight building envelope 
that limits infiltration and thermal bridging, and high performance glass all reduce 
unwanted heat gain or loss. “Optimizing” the design of the building envelope refers 
to a process that systematically evaluates options to find the best combination of 
strategies that will cost-effectively improve performance. 

Evaluation of Building Loads 

Before energy design strategies can be explored, an understanding of the building’s 
most significant energy requirements should be developed. Major components of 
the EPA facility energy load were ranked by building type (see accompanying pie 
charts). These components included outside air for ventilation, internal loads 
generated by occupants, lights and equipment; energy for supply air fans; and 
heat loss and gain through the building envelope. 


These initial load profiles guided the 
project team as they sought design 
strategies with the greatest benefit. For the 
new EPA Campus, high ventilation 
requirements in the laboratories, and high 
internal loads in the offices lessen the 
relative impact of the building envelope on 
overall energy use. The relative importance 
of the building envelope in terms of overall 
energy use is also much greater for the 
office buildings than for the laboratory 
buildings. For example, office buildings 
attribute 23 percent of peak energy load to 
the building envelope and the labs only 
attribute 2 percent. This indicates that 
improvements in the building envelope of 
the office building will be more cost- 
effective than improvements in the 
building envelope of the lab buildings. 

Sun Control 

A key goal of sun control is to provide 
beneficial daylighting for building 
occupants while blocking unwanted glare 
and heat gain. The facility’s facades 
incorporate some architectural sunshading 
through the deep profile of the precast 
concrete cladding. Clusters of tall trees, 
some as high as 80 feet, which were 
preserved during site design, also provide 
valuable shading for the west side of the 
low three-story office buildings. Low-E 
glazing and interior mini-blinds complete 
the sun control strategy in office areas. 


EPA CAMPUS COMPONENT PEAK LOADS 

LABORATORY 
Total Load 64 MillionBtu/Hr 

supply fan 



OFFICE 

Total Load 18 Million Btu/Hr 



envelope 

23 % 


31 


Design Process: Building Envelope 


Motorized shadecloth blinds are used in public areas in the central office tower. 
However, the lab buildings do not require interior blinds because all of the occupied 
spaces are inboard and the deep articulation of the precast concrete outer walls help 
shade strong midday sun. The cafeteria and training area facades, with 12-foot-high 
floor-to-ceiling glass overlooking the lake, incorporate a deep architectural trellis 
planted with deciduous vines that provide maximum sunshading in summer and 
partial sunshading in winter. 

Glass Selection 

The performance of types of glazing varies tremendously. Compared to most tinted 
and reflective glazings, spectrally selective Low-E coatings provide a higher level of 
daylight for a given amount of solar heat reduction. This feature is especially 
important in cooling-dominated climates. The Comparison of Glazing Performance 
(below) indicates that the improved Low-E double glazed insulating unit with 
spectrally selective glass has the highest Coolness Index (Cl) of all. This ability to 
transmit light without heat is a major technological achievement. For the EPA 
facility, the improved Low-E is used on southern and western exposures and the 
atrium roof. Standard Low-E is a lower cost option and provides sufficient 
performance for the northern and eastern exposures. 


Comparative Performance 
of Glazing Types 


Heat Flow 

U-value =1.11 
This is the 
comparison for 
other glazings 

Solar Heat 

SHGC = 0.86 
14% of solar 
radiation is 
rejected 



86% of 
solar 

radiation is 
transmitted 


Daylight 

VT = 0.90 
10% of visible 
light is reflected 
or absorbed 



90% of 
visible light is 
transmitted 


Heat Flow 

U-value - 0.24 
88% less heat 
than single-pane 
clear glazing 

Solar Heat 

SHGC = 0.41 
59% of solar 
radiation is 
rejected 



41% of 
solar 

radiation is 


Comparison of Glazing Performance 


Glazing types used at EPA 

Glazing Type 

U-Value 

(Winter/Summer) 

| Shading 
Coefficient 

1 Visible Light 
Transmittance 

Coolness 
Index (Cl) 

Single pane clear glazing 

1.09/1.03 

0.94 

89% 

.94 

Double pane clear glazing 

0.48/0.55 

0.81 

79% 

.97 

Bronze tint on clear double 
pane glazing 

0.44/0.52 

0.29 

18% 

.62 

Low-E coating on clear 
double pane glazing 

0.31/0.32 

.59 

73% 

1.24 

Low-E coating on green spectrally 
selective double pane glazing 1 

0.31/0.33 

0.47 

63% 

1.34 

Improved Low-E coating on 
green spectrally selective double 
pane glazing 

0.29/0.30 

0.35 

60% 

1.71 

Heat Mirror™ 88 1" insulating 
unit with green glazing 2 3 

0.32/0.37 

0.44 

61% 

1.38 

Heat Mirror™ 44 1" insulating 
unit with green glazing 2 3 

0.31/0.35 

0.24 

32% 

1.33 

Super Windows 

0.13 

0.36 

54% 

1.5 


Daylight 

VT = 0.72 
28% of visible 
light is reflected 
or absorbed 



transmitted 

72% of 
visible light is 
transmitted 


Single pane clear glass (top) and 
double pane glass with spectrally 
selective low-E coating (bottom) 


1 Spectrally selective glass has different performance depending on the color. 

2 Performance will vary depending on the film used, heavier films reduce light transmittance 
and lower shading coefficient, but U-value remains about the same, HM88 and HM 44 are 
shown to demonstrate some of the range. 

3 Assumes I" insulating unit, I 1/2" insulating unitwill have a U-value of 0.23/0.27 for HM88 
and 0.21/0.24 for HM44. 


The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 


32 








Building Envelope 

Refers to a building’s exterior skin. 
Particularly important is the 
extent to which it allows or 
resists the passage of air, light, 
heat, moisture, sound and pests 
into and out of the building. 


Coolness Index (Cl) 

Sometimes referred to as efficacy 
(ke), this is the ratio of visible light 
transmittance to shading 
coefficient; a higher number 
indicates better admission of 
daylight with less accompanying 
heat gain. 


Low-E 

Low-emissivity, a term used by the 
glass industry for microscopically 
thin metal or metallic oxide layers 
deposited on a window or skylight 
glazing surface primarily to reduce 
the U-factor by suppressing 
radiative heat flow. A typical type 
of low-E coating is transparent to 
the solar spectrum (visible light 
and short-wave infrared radiation) 
and reflective of long-wave 
infrared radiation. 


R-Value 

A measurement of the resistance 
of a material to the transfer of 
heat. Insulation having high R-value 
is important for walls, roofing and 
foundations.Windows and doors 
may have improved R-values 
depending upon their design. 


Shading Coefficient 

measures the total solar heat gain 
through the glazing compared to 
1/8” clear glass under the same 
design conditions; the lower the 
shading coefficient, the lower the 
solar heat gain. 


Thermally Broken Windows 

The largest disadvantage of aluminum as a window frame material is in its high thermal 
conductance. Unless “thermally broken,’’ the frame readily conducts heat, greatly 
raising the overall U-factor of a window unit. Moisture accumulation in the building 
can also become a problem if it becomes cold enough outside to condense moisture or 
frost on the inside surfaces of window frames. Consequently, all aluminum window 
frames for the EPA Campus are fully thermally broken. This feature will not only 
improve comfort, but it will also eliminate condensation that could lead to the growth 
of molds and mildew, thus preserving good indoor air quality. 



Light shelves at National Computer Center 


Light Shelves 

Metal light shelves that would also act as a sun screening element were explored during 
design. While light shelves can enhance the use of daylight in office areas, the potential 
benefits for the EPA offices were limited because of the high proportion of interior 
closed offices. In addition, deep window ledges and the tall existing trees adjacent to 
the building already provide some sunshading. Consequently, at a cost of approximately 
$500,000, light shelves were determined not to be the most cost-effective way to 
improve performance. Instead, improved low-E glazing was used on the west and south 
facades for a premium of $10,000. The result was almost as good as the $500,000 
solution and was much more cost-effective. 

Insulation 

Due to North Carolina’s mild climate and the relatively small contribution of the 
building envelope to overall thermal loads, super-insulation is not a cost-justifiable 
strategy in the new facility. Even in the winter, the office buildings will be in cooling 
mode most of the time, and the lab buildings will be minimally affected by their 
insulative value. Due to the internal loads generated by people, lights and computer 
equipment, offices on the interior are cooled virtually year round. In a typical office 
building, the envelope is 15-20 percent of the load, whereas the lights, equipment, 
people and outdoor air constitute the remainder of the load. In summer, light-colored 
roofing and cladding will contribute to heat gain reduction, putting less of a burden 
on the insulation to slow heat transmission. Therefore, insulation for the facility is 
provided in moderate quantities: U-values of 0.05 for the roof and 0.07 for the walls. 


33 


Design Process: Building Envelope 











Infiltration 

The infiltration of outdoor air can be a major source of heat transfer through a 
building’s envelope. It can also introduce unwanted moisture into the building’s 
interior. The EPA Campus used low-toxicity, high performance caulks and sealants 
to minimize unwanted heat loss and heat gain, to maintain required pressurization 
relationships between office and lab, and to prevent infiltration of exhaust air or 
ground contaminants. Air locks are provided at all public entries. 

Albedo Control 

Roof and exterior wall surfaces that reflect rather than absorb light limit heat 
absorption through the building envelope. The measure of light reflectivity is called 
“albedo.” Generally, materials with high albedo are light in color. Consequently, the 
project team chose white single-ply roofing (albedo of 0.78) throughout the facility 
to limit heat gain, and reduce air conditioning requirements. With an “emissivity” 
of 0.90, this roofing will also shed it’s absorbed heat relatively quickly. Even though 
studies show that similar white roofs lose up to 25 percent of their albedo within 
the first three years following installation due to dirt accumulation, the performance 
stabilizes at a level of about 0.60 albedo, which is still significantly better than 
typical black-roof surfaces. 


Thermal Break 

To solve the heat conduction 
problem of aluminum frames, the 
frame is split into interior and 
exterior pieces and a less 
conductive material such as plastic 
is used to join them. Current 
technology with standard thermal 
breaks has improved aluminum 
frame U-factors from roughly 2.0 
to about 1.0. 


U-Value 

A measure of heat flow is the 
inverse of R-value (R=l/U). 


The building cladding is a light beige precast concrete, with beige concrete masonry 
units at the building base and cores. These light-colored surfaces will also contribute 
to reduced cooling requirements for the facility. 

Albedo and Emissivity of Materials 


Material 

Albedo 

Emissivity 

Concrete 

0.3 

0.94 

Tar paper 

0.05 

0.93 

Bright galvanized iron 

0.35 

0.13 

Bright aluminum 

0.85 

0.04 

Aluminum Paint 

0.80 

0.27 - 0.67 

White single ply roofing 

0.78 

0.90 

Black EPDM roofing 

0.045 

0.88 

Gravel 

0.72 

0.28 


Source:The Protocols ofWhite Roofing by James I. Seeley, 
published in The Concrete Specifier, November 1997 

Operable Windows 

Air pressure relationships within the facility control the flow of air between the lab 
and the office portions of the building. These pressure relationships enhance safety 
within the building by ensuring that air in laboratory areas cannot migrate into 
office areas, which are under positive pressure. The pressure relationships also keep 
odors and fumes from spaces such as loading areas, trash docks and print rooms out 


Albedo 

A measure of the light reflectance 
of a material, whether a building 
material, paving, ground cover, etc. 
Building materials with high 
albedo (lighter colors) reflect 
more light off their surface and 
reduce the overall heat gain 
through the building’s envelope. 


Emissivity 

The rate at which absorbed 
energy is radiated away from an 
object; a desirable roofing 
membrane will easily release its 
absorbed heat energy and keep 
the roof cooler. 



The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 


34 













of the airstream. Operable windows would compromise the EPA’s facility’s pressure 
balance, and could create indoor air quality problems due to the region’s high 
humidity and heavy mold and pollen loads. 

However, to help bring fresh air inside during good weather, an outside air 
economizer system has been integrated into the design. When outside temperatures 
permit, and humidity is not too high, the outside air economizer system provides 
cooling with up to 100% outside air, filtered to remove dust, pollen and mold spores. 


Key Issues to Consider 

• Develop flexible space plans 
using modular design that 
anticipates future needs 

• Develop mechanical, electrical 
and plumbing infrastructure 
that anticipates future needs 
and can accommodate change 

• Improve efficiency of the 
building through the use of 
shared spaces 



Space Planning 

Space planning has a significant impact on the overall environmental performance 
of most facilities. Depending on how the space is designed, it will either become 
obsolete after a short period of time and require complete renovation, or it will be 
flexible enough to meet future needs with a minimum of effort. Consequently, 
increased flexibility enhances building longevity, thereby conserving material 
resources and reducing waste streams. 

The new facility has been developed with a flexible organizational system to 
accommodate movement of personnel, changes in research programs and changes 
in the mix of labs and offices. 

Modular Office Design 

To minimize the demand for office alterations, the design accommodates a limited 
number of office sizes. Two basic sizes are provided for closed offices, and two sizes 
for open workstations. The fundamental building block for office planning is a 36- 
by-50-foot “pod” with fixed demising walls that separate one pod, or suite, from the 
next. While this pod can accommodate open and closed offices in several different 
ways, a 20-foot-wide zone along the windows is always dedicated for open 
workstations so that people in the interior zone of the office floors will have access 
to natural light. 

When reconfiguration is necessary, the perimeter suite walls, lights, sprinklers, 
ceiling grid and electronic sensors can usually remain in place. Construction is 
mostly limited to those partition walls within the pod that must be changed to 
accommodate a different proportion of closed to open, or large to small offices. 
Demountable partitions were considered but not chosen because the need for 
reconfiguration within the office areas will not be frequent enough to justify the 
additional investment. 



Standard office suite configuration 


33 


Design Process: Space Planning 

























































































Modular Lab Design 

The laboratory space is designed to provide safe and efficient layouts with easy 
access to utility services and investigator offices. A service corridor provides access 
to essential plumbing, exhaust risers, electrical panels and bottled gases. The 
telecommunications backbone bisects each floor plate. Modular lab “building 
blocks measuring 11 feet by 23 feet are arrayed to each side of the service corridor, 
and an adjacent 11-foot by 12-foot support/office block provides added flexibility 
to house science or scientists. A service ledge containing all lab support utilities 
provides the core element for multi-module peninsula benches or the base structure 
for utility free dividing walls. Modules can be easily combined by leaving out these 
wall segments (up to eight modules in width), or by extending the base module to 
33 feet by using the lab support module. Conversely, adding a wall atop a peninsula 
bench allows easy division of larger labs into smaller labs without disrupting 
electrical or piped utilities. 




Service Corridor 


Typical Laboratory Plan 


Utility distribution to lab benches is provided through the fixed service ledge 
which supports and protects all utility piping. Services include gas, compressed 
air, vacuum, water and electricity for various kinds of specialty equipment and 
instrumentation. Since utility lines do not normally need to be moved when labs 
are reconfigured, there is less disruption, costs are minimized and demolition waste 
is drastically reduced. 

Lab casework and counter tops are designed in three- or four-foot units, each with 
pullout writing boards and either high or low bench heights. Kneehole spaces 
feature lockable computer keyboard drawers, and wall cabinets and open-wire shelf 
units are fully adjustable. This allows ready reuse of laboratory casework over the 
years of occupancy. The EPA labs have been developed so that all changes, except 
those that affect the size of the lab, can be made without construction. When 
construction is required it is limited to gypsum partitions between labs, while the 
floor, ceiling, lighting, sprinklers, diffusers and lab services all remain intact. 

These conserving strategies greatly extend the service life of labs and equipment, 
and reduce the quantity of lab furnishings and building materials typically hauled to 
landfills. Waste from future renovations is limited to gypsum wall board and steel 
framing, both of which are fully recyclable. Finally, very little research time will be 
lost waiting for renovations to be completed. 


The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 


36 





























Key Issues to Consider 

• Minimize the building’s 
exterior perimeter by 
connecting otherwise 
separate buildings 

• Draw natural light into the 
building interior, but avoid 
over-lighting 

• Minimize heat gain and heat 
loss through the atrium roof/ 
skylight 


Building Atrium 

Building atria can enhance the functionality of a building by providing large enclosed 
spaces that contribute to the sense of community within a facility. The atrium for 
the new EPA facility was seen as an important strategy to encourage interaction 
between EPA employees, not just within work groups but across disciplines. When 
properly designed, atria can also serve as energy conservation features that reduce 
heat gain and loss while bringing natural light into a building. However, careful 
skylight design is necessary if the potential energy benefit is going to be realized. If 
designed without proper care, an atrium can trap solar heat in the summer and lose 
heat through the skylight in the winter, greatly increasing energy usage. 

Building Massing 

The building massing of the EPA Campus has been developed to reduce exterior 
surface area while addressing the desire for a predominantly low-rise facility. A series 
of building atria connect laboratory and office buildings, to bring daylight into the 
facility while providing a main street of circulation for the complex of buildings. 
From a design perspective, the atria connect two otherwise separate buildings, 
reducing the exterior perimeter by exchanging skylight area for what would 
otherwise be exterior vertical walls. The connection provides savings, both in 
capital costs and energy costs. 

Energy and Daylighting Analysis 

The goal for atrium skylighting is to meet required functional and aesthetic 
requirements while balancing daylighting and energy goals. To optimize the design 
of the atrium skylight, the project team used energy and daylighting analysis to 
assess heat gain and loss through the atrium skylight, illumination requirements that 
could be met with daylighting, and heat gain associated with electric lighting. 

The original atrium design called for a top-of-the-line, all-glass skylight, with high- 
performance low-E glazing. However, the project team quickly realized that this 
approach was problematic. The atrium skylight would have provided too much 
light. The light converts to heat energy inside the building, which impacts the 
overall building cooling load. Excessive lighting also causes visual discomfort from 
harsh levels of contrast. However, simply lowering the visible light transmittance of 
the glass would have resulted in a gloomy, gray sky appearance, with high levels of 
interior reflectance on the glass. 



Section through the 
central atrium 


After adjusting model parameters for six different atrium roof options, the optimum 
skylight design was selected. Using the same high performance glass for 
approximately 26 percent of the surface, the remainder of the atrium surface was 
comprised of translucent panels with improved insulative value, and opaque panels 
filled with insulation. The revised design reduces the atrium’s peak energy usage by 
two-thirds compared to the all-glass skylight. The solution still provides plenty of 
light, so that the perimeter of offices facing the atrium will require very little 
artificial lighting. 

It is difficult to calculate the net benefit of the new facility’s atrium without a 
detailed energy analysis of a similar scheme with no atrium. For comparison 
purposes, the office portions of the adjacent central office tower next to the entry 
plaza were determined to operate on the same schedules and at the same density as 
the office buildings connected by the atrium. Energy calculations indicate the office 
buildings fronting the atrium use 37,400 Btu/SF/Yr versus 41,000 Btu/SF/Yr for 
the freestanding tower, a 10% reduction in energy consumption. This reduction is 
primarily related to decreased exterior surface. 


37 


Design Process: Building Atrium 




Scheme three is a modified 
version of the original skylight 
that faces west. In contrast, 
schemes four and five introduce 
a series of clerestory windows 
that face north and south, a 
traditionally-preferred approach 
for passive solar design that 
eliminates the western exposure. 
The energy analysis showed a 
surprisingly small added energy 

benefit for schemes four and five. Scheme three was ultimately chosen because it 
would be easier to maintain, due to its single, continuous slope as opposed to 
multiple peaks and valleys. Scheme three also allowed a clear view of the sky from 
the interior. 


Central atrium 


Atrium Skylight Options 

Multiple skylight options for the 
EPA project were considered 
(see diagram). A comparison of 
the first cost and the energy cost 
over a 20-year life cycle was 
provided for each. Schemes one 
and two were eliminated due to 
their relatively high cost and 
comparatively low energy 
performance. Schemes three, 
four and five had remarkably 
similar cost and energy 
performance. 




Scheme .1 





Atrium skylight options 


COST 

$1,000,000 

$900,000 

$800,000 

$700,000 

$600,000 

$500,000 

$400,000 

$300,000 

$200,000 

$ 100,000 

$0 


Total Cost 
First Cost 
Energy Cost 




Scheme Scheme Scheme Scheme Scheme 


The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 




















































































































































































Key Issues to Consider 

• Maximize the benefits of 
natural daylight 

• Select high-efficiency, long- 
lasting light sources and high- 
efficiency fixtures 

• Make use of task lighting 

• Balance lighting efficiency with 
visual comfort 

• Control the balance between 
natural and artificial lighting 
with sensors and dimmers 
where appropriate 

Ambient Light 

The overall lighting level of a 
space, including primarily daylight 
and overhead lighting. 

Ballast 

A device used to operate 
fluorescent and HID lamps. It 
provides the necessary starting 
voltage, while limiting and 
regulating the lamp current during 
operation. 

Color Rendering Index (CRI) 

A scale of the effect of a light 
source on the color appearance of 
an object compared to its color 
appearance under a reference light 
source (low numbers indicate 
unnatural appearance; 100 
indicates no color shift). 

Compact Fluorescent Lamps 
(CFLs) 

Fluorescent lamps that are 
configured to fit into a standard 
incandescent socket. Many models 
contain an integral ballast. 

Dimming Systems 

Controls that automatically turn 
down the artificial lighting in areas 
that receive sunlight during the 
daylight hours to save electricity 
and reduce the building’s 
cooling load. 


The outcome of this rigorous analysis was the selection of an atrium skylight design 
with reduced construction cost, combined with excellent daylighting and thermal 
performance. In addition to the energy and cost benefits, the atrium design 
contributes to the aesthetic quality, with a forest-like mix of brightness and shade, 
intermingled with views of the sky. 


Lighting Systems 

When electricity use and the increased cooling load due to electrical lighting are 
considered together, electric lighting generally represents approximately 15 percent 
of the overall energy consumption in typical office buildings. Efficient lighting 
requires appropriate use of daylight, an accurate assessment of required lighting 
quantities, use of efficient lamps, ballasts and fixtures, and measures to reduce 
unnecessary lighting during unoccupied hours. For the EPA Campus, the 
combination of sensor controls and high-efficiency fixtures produced lighting that 
is approximately 70% more efficient than a standard code-compliant building. 

Besides the energy issues associated with electric lighting, there are quality of life 
and productivity issues to consider. Excessive illumination can create visual 
discomfort, glare, headaches and fatigue while increasing energy consumption and 
associated pollutant emissions. Greater use of daylighting, reduced glare, good color 
rendition, elimination of lamp flicker and correct lighting levels can contribute to 
the productivity and well being of a building’s occupants. 

Green Lights 

EPA’s voluntary Green Lights program encourages companies to upgrade their 
lighting. While the efficient lighting technologies have a higher first cost, their 
payback periods are quick. Participants in the Green Lights program have found 
that, on average, their lighting improvements have generated a 30 percent rate of 
return. Although originally intended for existing buildings, the Green Light 
principles are equally valid for new construction. Consequently, the project team for 
the EPA Campus implemented the full range of measures described in the Green 
Lights program, including high-efficiency lamps and ballasts, task lighting, 
photoelectric dimming controls, occupancy sensors, a central lighting control system 
and bulb maintenance. The combination of sensor controls and high-efficiency 
fixtures produced lighting for the new Campus that is about 70% more efficient 
than standard code-compliant buildings. 

Daylighting 

The EPA Campus design promotes the use of daylighting in a number of ways. The 
building atria that connect lab and office buildings bring daylight into the building 
interior. All exterior glazing has high visible light transmittance and a low shading 
coefficient to provide “cool light.’’ Interior space planning supports daylighting 
through the use of light color finishes, low partition heights and a planning concept 
that designates almost 50 percent of the perimeter space planning zone to be 
dedicated to open office workstations. This zone keeps exterior windows 
unobstructed so that light can penetrate interior office zones. 

Task Lighting 

Task lighting directs light onto a work surface or object that requires illumination. 
This allows the general or “ambient” lighting levels to be reduced to a more 
comfortable level. Ambient lighting levels for the EPA Campus were reduced in 
anticipation of task lighting which will be used in all office and lab areas. The office 
areas are designed to 30-40 Foot Candles (FC) ambient and 50 FC task, and the 
labs are designed to 70-80 FC ambient and 100 FC task. 


39 


Design Process: Lighting Systems 


Laboratory Lighting 

The laboratories for the EPA Campus are lit with direct and indirect lighting that 
is complemented by task lighting on the work surface. Numerous options were 
evaluated. The direct/indirect lighting scheme proved to be considerably more 
efficient than a traditional scheme using down lighting alone. It also provides better 
quality lighting. The indirect component enhances the spread of light while the 
direct component improves overall efficiency as well as depth perception. 

The direct/indirect scheme also reduces the connected watts per square foot (SF) 
from 1.85 to 1.38 when compared to the direct lighting scheme alone. This is 
because only one row of three-lamp fixtures is required instead of two rows of two- 
lamp fixtures. This scheme also generates first cost savings. Light distribution studies 
developed for the selected indirect/direct scheme demonstrate that the spread of 
light in the labs will provide the desired quality. 



Computer-generated radiosity study of typical laboratory 


Office Lighting 

In the office areas, indirect lighting proved to be less efficient and more expensive 
than direct lighting. This was due to the high proportion of closed offices required 
in these areas. Consequently, office areas for the EPA Campus are lit with two-foot 
by four-foot recessed fluorescent downlights with compact fluorescent downlights in 
the circulation zones. Even so, this scheme requires less than one connected watt per 
SF. Daylight dimming and occupancy sensors in the office areas further reduce 
lighting requirements, so that the anticipated energy use for lighting is only about 
0.6 watts per SF. 

Special Spaces 

The lobby, cafeteria, conference center and breakout spaces in the atria are areas that 
traditionally would receive some incandescent lighting. However, with the advent of 
improved fluorescent lamps with high color rendering indexes (CRI) and no flicker, 
this preference is no longer valid. The EPA Campus uses compact fluorescent 
fixtures supplemented with metal halide fixtures in public areas where a stronger, 
more intense source is desired. 


Direct lighting 

Illuminates a surface or space 
directly from the light source, 
whereas indirect lighting reflects 
the light off other surfaces. 

Downlight 

A type of ceiling luminaire, usually 
fully recessed, where most of the 
light is directed downward. 

Fluorescent 

A lamp that produces visible light 
by emitting electromagnetic 
radiation and is much more 
efficient than incandescent, 
requiring only 15-30% of the 
energy to produce an equivalent 
amount of light. 



Typical laboratory section with 
direct / indirect lighting 
supplemented by task lighting 



Typical laboratory section with 
direct lighting supplemented by 
task lighting 


The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 


40 













































Occupancy Sensor 

A control device that turns lights 
off after the space has become 
unoccupied. 


Photocell 

A light sensing device used to 
control luminaires and dimmers in 
response to detected light levels, 
saving electricity when daylight is 
sufficient. 


Task Lighting 

Any form of light that is focused 
on a specific surface or object. It 
is intended to provide high-quality, 
flexible, lighting for a 
predetermined activity. 

Exit Signs 

• There are more than 100 
million exit signs in buildings 
throughout the United States, 
operating 24 hours a day, 365 
days a year 

• Cumulatively, we spend about 
$1 billion per year just to 
operate all the exit signs in 
buildings in the U.S. 

• Beginning in the year 2000, 
companies could save 800 
million kilowatts of electricity 
per year through the use of 
EPA Energy Star compliant 
exit signs, a total of almost 
$70 million each year 

• A typical long-life incandescent 
exit sign consumes 40 watts 
and must have the lamps 
replaced every eight months 

• A typical compact fluorescent 
exit sign consumes 10 watts 
and must have the lamps 
replaced every 1.7 years 

• A typical Light Emitting Diode 
(LED) exit sign consumes less 
than 5 watts and has a life 
expectancy of more than 80 
years. (An LED is a solid state 
light source with no filament) 

Source: Energy Efficient Lighting 
Association, 1998 



Central atrium 


Lighting Controls 

Many types of automated control systems have been developed to reduce the 
use of electric lighting when it is not needed. These systems include a variety of 
photoelectric sensors for dimming in response to daylight, occupancy sensors that 
shut lights off when occupants leave the room, and time clock controls that shut 
lights off based on occupancy schedules. Lumen maintenance controls use dimming 
to undo the overlighting that is typically employed to compensate for degradation 
of lamp output over time. 

The EPA Campus uses several of these systems in its lighting strategy. Photoelectric 
sensors for daylight dimming control are used in the building atria, the cafeteria and 
conferencing center, and in office building perimeter zones, including office areas 
that face the atria. Photoelectric sensors are also used to control lighting in the 
parking garages. Occupancy sensors are used to control lighting in open and closed 
office areas, as well as support areas such as storage rooms, copy rooms and small 
conference rooms. However, occupancy sensors will not be used in labs for safety 
reasons. The Building Automated Control System also has a timeclock feature that 
will switch off lights inadvertently left on during off hours. 

Exit Signs 

Although exit signs are a seemingly minor concern, they are plentiful in buildings 
and are illuminated 24 hours a day, seven days a week. When relamping is 
considered, the differences between available options are magnified. For example, a 
typical long-life incandescent lamp in an exit sign must be replaced every eight 
months versus 1.7 years for a compact fluorescent, and 80 years for a Light 
Emitting Diode (LED) exit sign. To take advantage of the installation, operations 
and maintenance dividends, the EPA Campus uses LED exit signs throughout. 


Building Mechanical Systems 

Building mechanical systems that provide heating, cooling and ventilation generally 
account for as much as 50 percent of a typical building’s total energy consumption. 
The efficiency of systems, however, varies considerably-as does the potential 
environmental impact. This impact can include resource depletion and habitat 


41 


Design Process: Building Mechanical Systems 


















destruction from the extraction of fuel, air emissions from combustion that create 
pollution and contribute to global warming, and ozone depletion from the release of 
chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) and hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) refrigerants in 
cooling equipment. 

From both a cost and a pollution prevention perspective, investments in energy- 
efficient systems should be considered after all efforts have been made to eliminate 
unnecessary thermal loads. Energy conservation and energy efficiency strategies for 
the EPA Campus netted more than a 40 percent reduction in energy consumption 
for the overall facility, compared to average building energy performance statistics 
developed by the U.S. Department of Energy. 

Energy Modeling 

Energy modeling is an effective tool that allowed the project team to evaluate 
options and find cost-effective solutions. An energy budget was developed for the 
EPA Campus, providing modeling information on peak loading and operational 
energy use. While reductions in peak loading can lead to first-cost savings as systems 
are downsized, operational energy use must also be evaluated as an indicator of 
ultimate energy consumption. Producing an energy budget during the detailed 
design phase allows for an accurate simulation because systems have already been 
selected. However, it limits the ability of designers to make use of energy studies to 
inform system selection and architectural scheme design. Ideally, a preliminary 
energy budget should be developed in schematic design and used as a design tool, 
then updated during design development and final design phases. 

Central Utility Plant 

The EPA Campus shares a central utility plant with the National Institute of 
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) facility across the lake. A separate utility 
plant for the EPA facility was originally considered because the elimination of the 
36" chilled water (CW) and 14” high temperature hot water (HTHW) campus loop 
would have considerable first- cost savings and limit thermal transport losses. 
However, the use of a central plant has the advantage of scale that favors the use of 
high-efficiency equipment, shared operations, staff and equipment, redundancy and 
load balancing. The shared plant was ultimately endorsed and, in the current design, 
cross-connected underground pipes supply HTHW and CW to both the EPA facility 
and NIEHS. 

In addition to shared equipment redundancy with NIEHS that offset some of the first- 
cost premium, the EPA Campus gained operational benefits associated with shared 
plant personnel. This shared redundancy proved to be a major cost and environmental 
savings to both EPA and NIEHS. One 3,500-ton chiller and one 40-million Btu/hour 
boiler were cut from the project, which eliminated the purchase, production and 
transport of enormous pieces of equipment. With less room needed for equipment, the 
central plant building expansion was reduced by 5,000 square feet. 

High Efficiency Chillers and Boilers 

The efficiency of chillers and boilers can vary considerably. However, even with 
high-efficiency equipment, chiller and boiler efficiencies are not fixed. Efficiencies 
can vary according to loading with some machines reaching peak efficiency at full 
load and others at partial load. Consequently, a good understanding of anticipated 
actual loadings, not just peak loading, is important for design so that the full load 
and the partial-load efficiencies of equipment can be evaluated and optimized 
relative to demand. 


Key Issues to Consider 

• Consider the primary fuel or 
energy source to be used 

• Look for equipment that does 
not use CFCs or HCFCs 

• Choose high-efficiency heating 
and cooling equipment, pumps 
and motors 

• Minimize reheating of 
conditioned air 

• Use variable frequency drives 
for fans and pumps, and 
variable air volume boxes for 
air handling 

• Explore heat reclamation. 

• Optimize distribution of 
mechanical equipment to 
minimize transport losses 

• Consider setting goals that 
exceed federal benchmarks 
for efficiency 


The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 


42 


Heat Recovery System 

Any system that recovers waste 
heat generated by building 
operation to satisfy part of the 
building’s energy needs. Sources of 
heat include exhaust air, machines, 
lights, process energy and people. 


Variable Air Volume (VAV) 

A feature in a mechanical space 
heating/cooling system that uses 
an automatic control to adjust the 
air volume flow rate rather than 
adjusting the air temperature. 


Variable Speed Drive 

A device used to control the 
speed of an alternating current- 
driven motor by electronically 
varying the input voltage and 
motor frequency. 


The chillers and the boilers specified for the NIEHS/EPA Central Utility Plant 
(CUP) are highly efficient units designed to operate at multiple settings. This allows 
their output efficiency to be optimized. For example, the CUP chillers consume 
0.54 KW/ton at 50 to 75% loads. At 100% load, consumption increases to 0.63 
KW/ton, and at only 25% load, the energy consumption is an even higher 0.77 
KW/ton. In other words, extremely high or low loads are the least efficient 
operating modes. Because the design is based on multiple chillers in operation with 
a redundant chiller provided, 100 percent output will never be required and 25 
percent loading will be minimized. 

Variable Air Volume 

Variable air volume (VAV) systems control temperature by varying the quantity 
of supply air based on the actual cooling required. VAV boxes can be set so that 
minimum outdoor air requirements are met while varying the supply air to suit the 
heating or cooling load in the space. In this situation, a variable speed drive on the 
air handler will slow down the fan, maintaining minimum system pressure and saving 
fan energy. In addition, the lower airflow passing across the cooling coil reduces the 
required heat transfer in the coil as well as the amount of chilled water used. 

The EPA facility uses a non-powered VAV system in the office buildings and a dual¬ 
setting constant volume system in the laboratories. The straight system was used 
instead of a fan-powered VAV even though a fan-powered VAV can contribute to 
better air movement and air mixing within the office space. The straight system was 
selected because the fan-powered VAV is a high maintenance piece of equipment 
that consumes fan energy. The simpler “straight” system is a low energy alternative, 
and it also allowed EPA to specify an increased minimum airflow. The EPA facility 
provides a minimum of 2.25 air changes per hour (ACH) of outdoor air, which 
exceeds the one ACH minimum recommended by the American Society of Heating 
and Refrigeration Engineers (ASHRAE) 62-89. 

Outside Air Economizer Cycle 

Each of the air handling units for the offices and the labs at the EPA Campus is 
equipped with an outside air economizer cycle with enthalpy controllers to sense 
relative humidity and protect the building from overly humid air. Outside air 
economizer cycle operation (also known as “free cooling”) allows the air handling unit 
to operate at up to a 100 percent outdoor air mode when the outdoor temperature 
and humidity allows. It is the mechanical equivalent of the open window. 

Economizers become active when outdoor air temperature is at or below 55 degrees. 
If the outdoor temperature continues to drop below the supply air temperature (55 
degrees), the system mixes outdoor air and return air to maintain temperature. 
Economizer cycles create tremendous savings in climates that are mild much of the 
year and where humidity is not too high. Outdoor air economizers need to be 
addressed in the early stages of design because space for larger ductwork and 
shaffways is required. 

Variable Frequency Drives 

A variable frequency drive is a solid-state device hooked to the starter of a motor, 
fan or pump to allow for the motor speed to be varied according to the demand. 
This allows the system to take advantage of the slower speeds and to reduce 
energy consumption. 

The EPA Campus uses variable speed drives on all water pumps and air handling 
units. Sensors in the piping system and the duct system monitor fluctuations in the 
static pressure or the water pressure, transmitting a signal to the variable speed drives 
to slow down or increase the speed of the motor depending on the conditions. 


43 


Design Process: Building Mechanical Systems 


High Efficiency Motors and Fans 

The heart of the HVAC system is the fan that pushes the air; the fan is required 
whether the process requires cooling, heating, ventilation or exhaust. Consequently, 
the specification of the highest efficiency fans and motors for use in the HVAC is an 
important step toward the development of efficient systems. The EPA specifications 
call for 90-95 percent efficient motors, a 10-15 percent savings over the customary 
80-85 percent efficient motors. The specifications also call for high efficiency 
centrifugal and axial fans with variable frequency drives. By combining the highest 
efficiency fan design with variable speed demand high efficiency motors, a 15-20 
percent overall savings in fan energy can be realized. 

Heat Reclamation for Hot Water Generation 

In the EPA facility, the high temperature hot water that has been circulated through 
heat exchangers to generate steam for the main building maintains sufficient heat to 
make domestic hot water. Consequently, circulating the water through an additional 
heat exchanger to make domestic hot water is an efficient use of the “surplus” heat. 
By maximizing the overall change in temperature, heat losses are reduced in site 
utility piping. This means that more of the energy per gallon of water is used and 
not wasted as system losses from site distribution. 

Laboratory Fume Hoods 

Laboratory fume hoods are vented enclosures provided for the safe handling of 
hazardous substances. They prevent the escape of contaminants to laboratory air, 
thereby providing containment. In addition, they typically provide most or all of the 
exhaust for the entire laboratory. 

During the design of the laboratories, it was determined that there were limited options 
for conserving energy conservation in the fume hood systems while still meeting 
current EPA safety performance standards. The air change requirement in the standard 
chemical lab is 12 air changes per hour (ACH); other specialty labs can require up to 
15 ACH. The design parameters at the outset of design were for a 1,400 cubic feet per 
minute (CFM) conventional fume hood, with no provision for nighttime setback. This 
EPA standard was based on the need for a minimum face velocity of 100 feet per 
minute (fpm) with the sash fully open. 

The EPA’s new standard hoods were modified to provide for an 80 percent sash stop on 
all of the hoods. The sash height reduction to 80 percent provides energy savings of 20 
percent without compromising safety. This requires the researcher to manually override 
the sash stop for setups within the hood, placing the hood in “alarm” mode, and then 
to lower the sash back to the 80 percent stop or lower while chemicals are handled 
within the hood. The sash height reduction requires that operators understand the 
system and not attempt to work with the hood 100 percent open. 

The design of the laboratories evolved to accommodate two-position variable air 
volume control for each lab module. Called a “nighttime setback,” this feature allows 
for energy savings in the lab module during unoccupied hours. A two-position supply 
volume box is provided in each lab module. Each fume hood is connected to a riser 
with a two-position exhaust volume box in the penthouse. The system has been devised 
so that when the fume hood is at maximum flow, the volume boxes are positioned to 
provide for a flow of 1120 CFM through the fume hood. If the lights are off and the 
sash is closed on the fume hood, the volume boxes will reduce the airflow through the 
lab module by approximately 50 percent. This saves energy by reducing the air 
handling unit flow rate and slowing down the motor on the fans. The reduced airflow 
eases cooling and reheat requirements. Fan energy is also saved when the exhaust 
requirements are reduced by using variable frequency drives on the exhaust fans. 


Economizer Cycle 

(aka “outside air economizer”) A 
system whereby cool outdoor air 
is used, as available, to ease the 
burden on a refrigeration cycle as 
it cools recirculated indoor air. 



Recirculated 
high percentage 
of total 

Return 

from 

building 


25 deg. 


Cooling (or heating) 

coils as needed 



40 deg. 


No cooling or heating 

coils needed 


Recirculated 
about 50° 



Economizer cycle controls 
the relationships between 
supply and return air; 

• When outside air is hot (or 
very cold) the economizer 
cycle is inactive 

• As very cold outside air gets 
warmer, it can be blended with 
recirculated air, and neither 
heating nor cooling coils are 
needed 

• When outside air is cool, it can 
completely replace recirculated 
air, making mechanical cooling 
inactive 

Source; Stein and Reynolds, 
Mechanical and Electrical 
Equipment for Buildings, 1992 


The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 


44 

































Conventional Fume Hood 

One of the oldest forms of 
laboratory fume hood, it is 
designed so that all exhaust air is 
drawn in through the front face 
opening.This type of hood can 
suffer from excessive face velocities 
and poor containment because the 
air velocity at the face increases 
proportionately as the sash is 
lowered. 


Fume Hood Energy 
Conservation Strategies 

Sash Height Reduction 

Because fume hood exhaust air 
quantities are determined by the 
area of the face opening and the 
need to maintain a minimum face 
velocity, a reduction in the sash 
height reduces the total required 
air flow. 

Night Set Back 

A sliding sash closes the fume 
hood and slows air flow during 
evening or unoccupied hours. 

Variable Air Volume Fume Hood 

Provides a constant velocity across 
the hood face opening by varying 
the supply and exhaust air volume 
when the sash is opened or closed. 
Requires sophisticated controls 
and a response time of not more 
than five seconds to safeguard 
against backdrafts. 

Horizontally Sliding Sash 

Horizontal panels reduce the face 
opening decreasing the total 
required air flow. 

Combination Sash Fume Hood 

Horizontal sashes are used in 
combination with vertical sashes, 
providing the opportunity to save 
air flow by restricting the sash 
opening either vertically or 
horizontally. 


Other energy conserving options, such as full VAV and combination 
vertical/horizontal sash fume hoods, were considered and rejected by the EPA team. 
EPA placed a high priority on low maintenance solutions that do not require 
expensive operator training. Some of the newer energy conserving strategies had too 
few successful installations to validate them when the design decisions were being 
made for the EPA Campus. 


Industry Standard 6-Foot Hood 



EPA Hood: Operational Mode 



EPA Hood: Set-Up Mode 


EPA Hood: Night Setback (Unoccupied) Mode 


—> 

Sash 

100% 

open 






ALARM 


Lights 

off 







Sash 

closed 




1,120 CFM 

20% minimum savings all the time 

660 CFM 

53% total savings 


Heat Recovery for Laboratory Exhaust 

Heat exchangers operate in a number of different ways depending on the medium that 
is being used, and the proximity of the intake and exhaust streams. Their function is to 
use waste heat and waste cooling to accomplish preheating and precooling. The 
potential for energy savings can be quite high, particularly for building types like 
laboratories that require large volumes of conditioned air to be exhausted. 

A value engineering study prepared during concept design for the EPA facility 
evaluated the cost-effectiveness of installing a glycol runaround system in the 
laboratory air handling equipment. The glycol system was proposed because it 
avoids possible contamination between air streams, and won’t freeze in the outside 
air stream. In the winter, warm exhaust air transfers heat to a glycol solution, which 
is then pumped to the coil in the air handling unit to preheat outdoor air. Incoming 
air is warmed as it passes over the glycol loop before passing through the heating 
coil, thus reducing the energy required to heat the outdoor air. This is also true in 
the cooling season where cooler exhaust air cools the glycol solution, which then 
precools the outdoor air. 

Much to everyone’s surprise, the study indicated that the glycol heat recovery system 
would cost $915,000 to install and approximately $8,900 more per year to run than 
the system without the runaround cycle. This cost differential was attributed to the 
extremely low electric rates of the local electric power provider and the absence of 
profound, long-duration extremes in North Carolina weather. The glycol system had 
increased fan static pressure caused by the heat recovery coils, and additional energy 


45 


Design Process: Building Mechanical Systems 
























































requirements for the glycol loop pumps. The energy to run the reheat system was 
enough of an additional load to actually make heat recovery a more expensive 
system to operate. As a result, EPA did not install a heat recovery system, but 
provided space in the mechanical penthouse to allow installation of a system should 
technology and economics make heat recovery a prudent choice in the future. 

CFC Free Refrigeration Equipment 

Because of the impact CFCs have on the ozone layer, CFC refrigerants have been 
largely replaced by HCFC substitutes. Federal legislation has mandated strict 
phaseout dates that further impact decision making. Among the common 
substitutes for CFCs are HCFC-22, which has one-twentieth the ozone depleting 
potential of CFC-11 and will be phased out in 2020; HCFC-123 which has less 
than half the ozone depleting potential of HCFC-22 and will not be phased out 
until 2030; and HFC 134a, which has no measured ozone depleting potential and 
does not have a phase out date scheduled at this time. There are pros and cons to 
HCFC-123 and HFC-134a, the two most viable substitute refrigerants. While 
HCFC-123 is more efficient, it is scheduled to be phased out of production due to 
its ozone depletion potential. HFC 134a is a safer alternative that has less ozone 
depleting potential, but is a higher pressure refrigerant that is slightly less efficient 
and requires slightly larger equipment and more floor area. 

In the end, EPA selected HFC-134a because it is a 0-rated refrigerant for ozone 
depleting potential. Gas absorption chillers were rejected as an option because the 
cost was prohibitive given the extremely low electricity rates at RTP. 

Building Humidification 

Humidification is recommended in regions where winter conditions are particularly 
dry and may adversely impact the health and well-being of occupants in office 
environments. In laboratories, humidification can be essential to the success of 
research projects. To provide the necessary humidification, the EPA facility uses a 
water atomizing system that employs compressed air and softened water to provide a 
minimum relative humidity (RH) of 33 percent in the laboratories and offices. A 
value engineering study verified that energy savings made this type of system cost 
effective even with its higher first cost. Steam systems require high temperature hot 
water to be converted to steam with special re-boiler generators that have inherent 
inefficiencies, as well as heat loss from piping. With the water atomizing system, 
cooling requirements are reduced because cool vapor from the humidifier acts as an 
evaporative cooling medium, giving the system a certain amount of free cooling in 
the air stream. Because of these savings, the cost of the system was acceptable. 

Central Direct Digital Control (DDC) System 

Central control systems allow building operators to have close control of their 
equipment and save energy by allowing systems to be turned down or off when they 
are not needed. The typical direct digital control (DDC) system uses a central 
computer and remote control panels into which the various pieces of equipment are 
wired for control. The system has an electronic base and is far more accurate than 
the pneumatic (compressed air control) systems of the past. Even if the main 
computer console goes down, the remote panels can stand alone and continue to 
control the equipment. 

A central DDC system has been specified to control all of the HVAC systems and 
many of the electrical components as well. The building operator will be able to 
monitor multiple control parameters including temperatures, pressures, whether 
lights and fans are on or off, whether filters are clogged and other aspects of air 
handling units as well as pumps and cooling tower operation. 


Global Warming Potential 

The ratio of the warming caused 
by a substance to the warming 
caused by a similar mass of 
carbon dioxide. 


Ozone-Depletion Potential 

The ratio of the impact on ozone 
of a chemical compared to the 
impact of a similar mass of 


CFC-1 I. 


Ozone-Depleting Substances 

Those chemicals that contribute 
to stratospheric ozone depletion, 
including chlorofluorocarbons 
(CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons 
(HCFCs), halons, methyl bromide, 
carbon tetrachloride and methyl 
chloroform. 


Central DDC System 

• Schedules start/stop 

• Optimum start/stop 

• Duty cycling 

• Load shedding 

• Demand limiting 

• Enthalpy economizer 

• Temperature set back 

• Supply air settings 

• Water temperature settings 

• Chiller optimization 

• Chiller demand limiting 

• Lighting systems control 

• Security systems control 

• Critical and maintenance alarms 


The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 


46 


Systems to be 
Commissioned 

• Each HVAC supply air system 

• Each HVAC exhaust air 
system 

• HVAC hot water system 

• HVAC chilled water system 

• HVAC HTHW system 

• HVAC steam system 

• Fuel oil system 

• Animal watering system 

• Water heaters 

• Fire pumps 

• Raceway system 

• Conductor system and 
wiring devices 

• Grounding system 

• Lighting control system 

• Fire and voice alarm system 

• Security system 

• Emergency stand-by power 
system 


These systems can be started, stopped and otherwise controlled for maximum 
efficiency. Alarms will feed back to a central console so that the condition of all 
equipment can be assessed at all times. As the actual building operating characteristics 
are established, the system operators will be able to make adjustments to operating set 
points to optimize system performance and reduce energy usage. A telephone interface 
module (TIM) allows for modem interface and touch tone overrides from any touch 
tone telephone. Wall thermostats provide office and lab occupants with digital readings 
of temperatures within the office suites. Occupants can request adjustments with a 
phone call to the building automation system operator. 

Building Commissioning 

In the past, commissioning has been used primarily as a procedure to verify the 
performance of HVAC equipment. It ensures that equipment is installed and 
operating properly before the building is occupied. Studies have shown that 
buildings that are not properly commissioned can lose as much as 20 percent of 
their operational energy efficiency due to improperly operating systems. 

“Full systems’’ commissioning is becoming increasingly common. At the EPA 
facility, operators and maintenance personnel have been included in the 
commissioning process to enhance their understanding of the building’s systems and 
their intended performance. Participants have included EPA personnel such as the 
building engineers, HVAC operation and maintenance personnel and building 
security personnel. A separate testing and start-up procedure was required for the 
DDC system to ensure that it is working properly and building engineers know how 
to operate it. 

Building Acceptance Test Manual 

A Building Acceptance Test Manual was developed by the project team to provide 
an operations manual for the building owner to use during commissioning and 
occupancy. All building systems-HVAC, electrical, fire safety, security, 
communications and architectural-were itemized and appropriate testing protocols 
were identified. This document serves as an important guide for ongoing 
maintenance and recommissioning over time. 


47 


Design Process: Building Mechanical Systems 


Summary of major heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems. 


Item 

Impact on Energy Efficiency 

Variable Speed Drives 

Variable speed drives have been provided for all water pumps 
and air handling units. Sensors in the piping or duct system 
record fluctuations in static pressure or water pressure and 
transmit a signal back to the variable speed drives, which then 
slow down or increase the motor speed. 

VAV Boxes in Office Areas 

A standard Variable Air Volume (VAV) System is provided for 
the office spaces. A variable speed drive on the air handler will 
slow down the fan, thereby maintaining minimum system 
pressure and saving fan energy. 

Air Economizer Cycle 

Each air handling unit for the office space is equipped with a free 
cooling economizer cycle.The air handling unit will operate at 

100% outdoor air mode when the outdoor air temperature is 
below the space return air temperature.When the temperature 
drops, the system would then mix outdoor air and return air 
in order to maintain temperature. 

Lab Air Handling Units - 
Optimum Operating 

Efficiency 

Each of the main lab buildings contains five air handling units. 

As the building load increases, the control sequences will have 
the units operate at 60%, 80% and then 100% to optimize 
efficiency. 

Pipe Sizing 

Piping has been.sized so that the pressure drop is below the 
recommended values in Standard 90.1 Section 9.5.5.1, creating 
greater energy savings than required by ASHRAE or the 
applicable building codes. 

Two Position VAV for 
Laboratories 

Two-position air flow control for the laboratories: when the fume 
hood is at maximum flow, the box is fully open to provide 1 120 CFM 
exhaust. If the lab is unoccupied and the hood sash is closed, 
the boxes will go to a 50% position, saving energy by reducing the 
air handling unit flow rate. 

Building Infiltration 

Controls 

By ensuring that pressurization exists, outside air infiltration is 
minimized to reduce loading on the heating system. 

HVAC Control System 

A direct digital control (DDC) central building automation 
system will monitor and control all equipment set points to 
maximize efficiency and monitor performance. 

Air Filter Pressure 

Static pressure sensors for each filter bank in all air handling 
units monitor pressure drop across filters and alert maintenance 
staff as when they need to be changed, thereby improving 
energy efficiency of fans. 

Ductwork and Pipe 

Insulation 

Meets the ASHRAE Energy Conservation Standard 90.1 
requirements. 

High Temperature Hot 
Water/Domestic Water 
Generation 

High temperature hot water is circulated through heat 
exchangers to generate steam and also to make domestic hot 
water.This means that more of the energy per gallon of water 
is utilized and not wasted as system losses in the 
site distribution. 

Water Atomizing 
Humidification 

A water atomizing system for humidification has been 
incorporated into the laboratories and office spaces. Also serves 
as an evaporative cooling medium. 


The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 


48 





United States Projected 
Water Savings from 
Efficiency Standards 


Water Fixture Use 
(Billions m3/year) 



Water Conservation 

Building operations consume an estimated 16 percent of the fresh water in the 
United States. 8 The portion used for landscape irrigation can be controlled through 
the use of native plantings and water reuse strategies. The water usage for 
equipment will vary based on the types of systems used, with one-pass cooling and 
evaporative strategies using the largest quantities of water. While water usage for 
plumbing fixtures has been reduced considerably due to the mandatory water 
efficiency requirements in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT), more can be 
done to promote water conservation. 

Water Conserving Fixtures 

The EPA Campus uses EPACT standard low flush toilets and urinals. Lavatories 
used for hand washing have been demonstrated to perform quite well at 0.5 gallons 
per minute, instead of the 2.5 allowed by the EPACT. Consequently, aerators and 
flow restricting nozzles for faucets and showers were used to make the facility more 


I Without EPACT standards 
| With EPACT standards 


Source:Worldwatch Institute, 1996 


Key Issues to Consider 

• Meet or exceed the EPACT 
fixture requirements for 
water conservation 

• Consider automatic shut-off 
faucets in high-use areas 

• Consider alternative toilets 
and urinals 

• Eliminate the use of chillers 
that use “one pass” water 

• Explore water-efficient 
cooling tower options, such as 
drift eliminators and 
automated blow down 


1992 Energy Policy Act (EPACT) Requirements 
for Water Conserving Fixtures, effective 1/1/94 


Shower Heads and Faucets 

Fixture Type 

Maximum 

Water Use 

Showerheads, any type (excluding safety showers) 

2.5 gallons per minute 

Lavatory faucets 

2.5 gallons per minute 

Lavatory replacement aerators 

2.5 gallons per minute 

Kitchen faucets 

2.5 gallons per minute 

Kitchen replacement aerators 

2.5 gallons per minute 

Metering faucets 

.25 gallon per cycle 


Water Closets and Urinals 

Fixture Type 

Maximum 

Water Use 

Gravity tank-type toilets (non commercial) 

1.6 gallons per flush 

Gravity tank-type toilets (commercial) 

1.6 gallons per flush 

Flushometer tank toilets 

1.6 gallons per flush 

Electromechanical hydraulic toilets 

1.6 gallons per flush 

Blowout toilets 

3.5 gallons per flush 

Urinals (any type) 

1.0 gallons per flush 


49 


Design Process: Water Conservation 









water efficient than the EPACT standard. For the EPA Campus, manual flush 
valves were used, and touchless “sensor-operated” lavatories provide for improved 
sanitation and heightened water conservation. Availability of hot and cold water has 
been improved by a recirculating system with automatic temperature controls. 

Water Efficient Cooling Towers 

Cooling towers provide an efficient complement to chilled water cooling systems, 
by rejecting the waste heat from the recirculating chilled water system. These towers 
maximize the surface area contact between outdoor air and the warm waste water, 
creating cooling action through evaporation. They have been made more water 
efficient by limiting “drift,” or excessive water content, in the hot air that is rejected, 
and by recirculating the condensate water. Most, but not all, cooling tower 
manufacturers have incorporated drift eliminators as standard features that 
decrease water consumption. 


HOT HOT 

WATER f WATER 

IN WARM ,N 

♦ AIR OUT ♦ 



NOZZLES 


AIR 

IN 


AIR INLET 
LOUVERS 


WET DECK 
SURFACE 


COOLED 
WATER OUT 


Cooling tower 


Cooling Towers Save Water 

The EPA campus uses innovative 
features that will save about 4 
million gallons of water per year. 


The EPA Campus has incorporated some innovative features to improve the water 
efficiency of cooling towers, generating an estimated savings of approximately four 
million gallons a year. These features include a dynamic water analysis system that allows 
the quantity of blowdown to be reduced to a minimum. The system regularly monitors 
water quality, allowing better control of the additive dosage and thereby reducing the 
need to apply a “safety factor” in anticipation of days when the water quality may be 
atypical. The dynamic sampling system increases the cycles of concentration from 6-8, 
which is the industry standard, to 12-14. While the system conserves water, it also 
reduces reliance on chemicals and has a two- to three-year payback. 

Ozone Treatment for Cooling Towers 

An ozone system was considered early on by the project team as a nearly chemical-free 
option for treating condensate water in the cooling towers. The ozone system offered 
an attractive option because it not only conserved water, but it also greatly reduced 
reliance on chemicals for water treatment. Unfortunately, the system could not be cost 
justified for this application. The first cost premium for the system was estimated at 
$300,000-350,000, and the system also had higher maintenance costs. 

Alternative Technologies 

Alternative technologies were defined by the EPA project team as those that are not 
yet common in the marketplace. Some technologies were included in this category 
because they are new. Others were included even though they had not yet gained 
widespread acceptance because they only proved cost effective where rates for 
electricity, water or sewage treatment have become especially high. This was a 
subjective judgment that is not based on the merit of the individual technologies. 
Though all of the alternative technologies considered for the EPA Campus had 
positive environmental characteristics, most would have come at a significant cost 


Cooling towers, however, must be protected from corrosion and contamination. 
Typically, this is done with chemical additives. The type and the quantity of additive 
used to treat the water varies regionally due to natural variations in the water 
chemistry. Generally, these additives include corrosion inhibitors, dispersants, algae 
and bacteria control agents, alkaline additives and oxygen scavengers. To determine 
the correct amount of a given additive for a specific cooling tower, periodic water 
tests are performed. The tests enable the development and regulation of a 
maintenance program with an automated system that controls dosage and 
“blowdown.” Blowdown is the term for water that is discharged from the 
condensate water system to control the concentration of chemicals, salts and 
other impurities in the circulating water. 


The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 


50 













Key Issues to Consider 

• Optimize energy and water- 
efficiency of standard facility 
design and systems 

• Determine total resulting 
energy and water-use needs, 
including daily and seasonal 
variations 

• Gather data on local and 
micro-climate, including solar 
incidence, average monthly 
temperature, wind patterns, 
relative humidity and average 
monthly rainfall 

• Research currently available 
technologies for hydrogen fuel 
cells, wind power, photo 
voltaics, solar water heating, 
point of use water heating, 
grey water recycling, 
rainwater catchment and 
pervious paving 

• Determine cost effectiveness 
of each alternative technology 
explored 

• Investigate local, state and 
federal financial incentive pro 
grams for alternative 
technologies 

premium. In the interest of balancing environmental benefits with cost and 
functional performance, EPA chose to use only those alternative technologies 
which were most appropriate for this project. 

It should be noted that the determination of cost effectiveness for some technologies 
was greatly impacted by the costs of electricity in RTP. Electricity costs vary widely 
across the U.S. At the current commercial rate in RTP of 4-5 cents per a kilowatt- 
hour (KWH), the cost of electricity is low. For example, rates in New York City or 
Boston are closer to 12-13 cents per KWH. While the low rate keeps the cost of 
operations down, it proved to be a disincentive to incorporating energy-efficient 
technologies that have marginal cost benefits. 

Photovoltaics 

Photovoltaics, or solar electric cells, convert sunlight into electricity. Many different 
types of technologies are available, but the two basic types are polycrystalline and 
thin film. The polycrystalline options are generally more efficient and more 
expensive than thin film options. 

Photovoltaics were evaluated for the EPA Campus. However, working with a limited 
construction budget, the project could not bear the full first cost of photovoltaic 
electric systems for the entire campus. By exploring alternative funding strategies, 
the project team was able to incorporate two photovoltaic applications onto the 
campus. 

Aided by grant funds from the federal Department of Energy and the State of 
Virginia, EPA chose to install a 100 kilowatt array on the roof of the National 
Computer Center building. This solar array provides power directly to the building. 
Since the building houses extensive computing systems, and has an unusually high 
power demand, the building is also connected to the electrical grid. 

Photovoltaics (PV) 

Solid state semiconductor devices 
that convert light directly into 
electricity.They are usually made of 
layers of silicon or other 
semiconductor material with traces 
of other elements. PV cells are 
housed and wired together in 
“modules,” which may be used 
singly or grouped in an “array.” PV 
systems may include battery storage 
or may be wired directly to the 
utility line, although some systems 
may use neither. Systems with 
batteries need electronic devices to 
control their charging or limit their 
discharging of the batteries. 

EPA also negotiated a lease-purchase arrangement with the local power company 
to install 70 photovoltaic lights along the site roadways-creating one of the largest 
solar road lighting projects in the U.S. Since the lights would be owned by the 
power company, prior to an optional buyout by EPA, the power company took 
advantage of a 35% tax credit from the State of North Carolina for solar power 
equipment purchases. The tax credit significantly reduced the cost of the solar lights 
to make the system cost-justifiable for EPA. Over a 20-year life cycle, EPA expects 
these solar lights to cost the same as standard street lights. 

Fuel Cells 

Fuel cells are highly efficient engines that convert natural gas into heat energy and 
electricity. For building applications, they are most appropriately used where there is 
a constant demand for electricity and heat 24 hours a day. Because of the size and 
weight of fuel cells, they need to be integrated into early conceptual planning to be 
accommodated successfully. In 1992-93, when the EPA Campus was in the early 
stages of design, fuel cells were not a viable option and were ruled out. They were 
later considered for the National Computer Center as a source for conditioned 
power and a replacement for the uninterruptible power supply, but again proved 
cost prohibitive. However, fuel cells have evolved rapidly over the past decade, and 
should be considered as a possible cost-effective source for large constant loads. 

Wind Power 

Wind generators are becoming increasingly prevalent in some parts of the country. 
They were determined to be inappropriate for the EPA Campus because of the 
forested nature of the site, the relatively low wind velocities in the area, and the 

51 

Design Process: Alternative Technologies 


abundant low-cost electricity available on the site. Trees would have to be cleared to 
make room for wind generators on the site and this would have defeated the effort 
to minimize habitat disruption. 

Solar Hot Water 

Solar hot water technology provides an efficient application of the sun’s energy to 
direcdy heat water for use. Given the low local cost of electricity, solar hot water heating 
offered the most likely cost-effective solar alternative. However, the central water system 
proposed for use on the EPA Campus was also very efficient and made use of heat 
recovery. Consequently, solar hot water generation was never formally evaluated. 

Central Hot Water vs. Point-of-Use Hot Water 

Point-of-use heaters for water can be an attractive option because heat is only 
generated when it is needed and heat energy is not lost in transmission as hot water 
is pumped and recirculated through the building. A study completed for the EPA 
facility to evaluate the potential benefit of using a point-of-use system for water 
heating made a clear case for the use of the central system. While the first cost of 
the point-of-use system is slightly lower, the life cycle costs are dramatically higher, 
since these systems are less efficient than a central hot water system. Heat recovery is 
more easily accommodated into a central system and maintenance is simpler when 
fewer pieces of equipment require servicing. 


Point-of-Use versus Central Hot Water Heating 



Central Hot 
Water Plan 

Point of Use 

10 Year Warranty 

Point of Use 

20 Year Warranty 

Hot water piping system 

$140,694.90 

$20,744.00 

$20,744.00 

Water heaters 

$65,400.00 

$109,156.00 

$148,900.00 

Miscellaneous installation 

$ 1,600.00 

$20,250.00 

$20,250.00 

Annual energy cost 

$13,172.78 

$46,147.76 

$34,802.94 

Annual maintenance cost 

$6,700.00 

$19,996.52 

$16,330.00 

Total 20-year cost 

$799,468.13 

$2,151,799.00 

$1,744,534.74 


Grey Water Reuse 

Grey water is defined as all wastewater not originating from toilets or urinals. It includes 
water from lavatories, coffee sinks, showers and drinking fountains. The grey water study 
for the EPA Campus considered reuse of various sources of grey water ranging from the 
highly purified reverse osmosis (RO) water used in laboratories through the condensate 
from air handlers, and eventually to all the possible grey water sources combined. North 
Carolina codes restrict grey water use within the building, and the EPA’s outdoor 
irrigation requirements were minimal. An option that treated black water (water from 
flushing fixtures) was also considered. 

One interesting discovery from this study, however, was that there were nearly 
enough relatively clean water sources to provide the entire water requirement for 
flushing and irrigation without any need to introduce expensive filtration systems 
for water reuse of wastewater streams that would contains soaps and other 
contaminants. The water generated from condensate alone is 500-3,100 gallons per 
hour during the cooling season. 



Typical PV system including 
battery and controller, Solarex 


Fuel Cell 

A fuel cell converts chemical 
energy directly into electricity via a 
modified oxidation process; that is, 
by reversing electrolysis. By 
combining hydrogen and oxygen 
from an outside source, the fuel cell 
makes electricity like a battery that 
does not need to be recharged 
because the fuel comes from 
outside.The process also produces 
heat, water and carbon dioxide 
depending upon the fuel used. 

Solar Water Heater 

A system in which direct heat 
from the sun is absorbed by 
collectors and transferred by 
pumps to a storage unit.Typically, 
the heated fluid in the storage unit 
conveys its heat to the building’s 
hot water via a heat exchanger. 
Controls are needed to regulate 
the operation. 

Point-of-Use Water Heater 

A small water heater that services 
only the water to be used at one 
location, such as a single lavatory 
faucet, rather than storing hot 
water in a central tank and 
distributing it throughout the 
building via pipes, from which 
much of the heat will escape. 

Some point-of-use water heaters 
are “tankless,” while others use 
very small storage tanks at each 
location. 


The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 


52 





Grey Water Recycling 

Any system of reusing wastewater 
not originating from toilets or 
urinals. In commercial buildings 
this includes waste water from 
lavatories, showers, drinking 
fountains and janitor’s sinks. 
Sometimes it includes stormwater. 
Grey water may be reused once 
to flush a toilet before being sent 
to sewage treatment or may be 
diverted to an irrigation system, 
depending upon its contaminants. 


Grey Water Reuse Study 



Option 1 

Reuse RO 
reject only 

Option 2 

Reuse all 
pure water 

waste 

streams 

Option 3 

Option 2 
plus clear 
condensate 

from air 
handlers 

Option 4 

Option 2 
plus grey 
water 

Option 5 

Option 4 
plus black 
water 

reuse 

First Cost Premium 

$70,940 

$147,700 

$409,500 

$744,400 

$ 1,480,000 

Annual Costs 1 

$6,500/yr 

$7,400/yr 

$ 1 1,600/yr 

$26,800/yr 

$68,800/yr 

Annual Water Savings 

$6,380/yr 

$ 15,000/yr 

$23,000/yr 

$27,200/yr 

$29,100/yr 

Payback 

N/A 

19.4 years 

35.9 years 

1860 years 

N/A 


1 Annual costs refers to annual energy and maintenance costs 


Rainwater Catchment 

A system that gathers rain that 
falls on a roof or yard and 
channels it to a storage tank 
(cistern).The first wash of water 
on a roof is usually discarded and 
the subsequent rainfall is captured 
for use if the system is being used 
for potable water. Alternatively, a 
sand filter may be used. 


With minimal need for irrigation and restrictive codes for indoor use, along with 
a very high cost for dual plumbing systems, EPA opted not to include grey water 
reuse in the project. 

Rain Water Catchment 

Rain water catchment refers to systems that collect rain water in storage tanks or 
cisterns for reuse in the building or for irrigation. This was viewed as a landscape 
irrigation feature, and because nearly all irrigation requirements had been eliminated 
from the design, this option did not receive a formal investigation. Rain cisterns 
were considered as a possibility but were quickly eliminated due to code constraints 
for indoor use and little need for outdoor watering. 


Key Issues to Consider 

• Gather data to evaluate life- 
cycle impact of materials and 
systems 

• Balance environmental 
performance with cost and 
durability 

• Dimension materials carefully 
to minimize waste 

• Avoid the unnecessary use of 
finish materials 

• Design for disassembly and 
reuse of materials 

• Establish maximum volatile 
organic compound (VOC) 
content levels 

• Establish minimum recycled 
content levels 


Building Materials 

Through their design decisions and specifications, architects and engineers directly 
influence the purchase of millions of tons of materials each year. These design 
decisions impact the marketplace and influence the kinds of products that industry 
produces. In turn, these market decisions affect the selection of raw materials, the 
use of energy and water, the depletion of non-renewable resources and the creation 
of waste and pollution. 

The project team for the EPA Campus considered the environmental impact of 
building materials over their entire life cycle in selecting materials for the new 
facility. Then, as the specifications were developed, specific performance criteria 
were documented to the greatest extent possible. 

Life-Cycle Impacts of Materials and Products 

Most standard building materials and products have a fairly wide field of manufacturers 
and, consequently, products vary. Therefore, selecting environmentally preferable 
building materials and products requires a proactive approach that examines the 
environmental and health impact of a product at each stage of its life cycle. 



53 


Design Process: Building Materials 









• Raw Material Composition 

Are the materials nontoxic? Renewable? Salvaged? From a sustainable source? 

Do they contain recycled content? 

• Production Process 

How much energy and water is used in the manufacturing process? How much 
solid, aqueous and gaseous waste is emitted? Is manufacturing waste reused? Is 
the manufacturing plant energy efficient? Does the manufacturing plant 
conserve or reuse water? 

• Packing and Shipping 

Is the product locally manufactured? Is minimal, reusable or recycled packaging 
used? Are efficient shipping methods used? 

• Installation and Use 

How durable is the product? Can it be repaired? Is the installation method 
hazardous? Does the product, or related adhesives or finishes, produce chemical 
emissions? Is the product low maintenance? Do maintenance procedures produce 
chemical emissions? 

• Resource Recovery 

Is the product salvageable, recyclable or biodegradable? Does the manufacturer 
have a take-back program? 

Durable Materials 

EPA’s long-term commitment to its new facility and its location in RTP is reflected 
in the stated design goal to create a “100-year-building.” This view is intended to 
reduce long-term operating and maintenance costs. Highly durable materials have 
an environmental advantage because fewer materials are used over time and less 
material is disposed of. Examples of durable materials selected for the facility 
include cementitious terrazzo, mud-set ceramic tiles and the precast concrete 
exterior wall system. The ceramic tile will last almost forever when properly 
installed, and the cladding is anchored to masonry backup walls, detailed with 
stainless steel flashing, and sealed to enhance longevity and maintainability. 

Recycled Content 

Specification of materials with recycled content helps to conserve virgin resources 
and drives the market for recycling. Therefore, the specification for the EPA facility 
included detailed requirements for minimum recycled content by material type. The 
EPA’s Recovered Materials Advisory Notices (RMAN) provided preliminary 
guidance. Then, research into market availability was performed using a detailed 
questionnaire. The goal was to evaluate the cross-section of products available so a 
competitive range of manufacturers could be selected. 

Products specified with recycled content include rubber flooring, ceramic tiles, 
asphalt paving, cast-in-place concrete, insulation, wood fiberboard, gypsum 
wallboard and more. The following figure presents all of the recycled content 
provisions in the final specification. The list represents minimums and many 
materials have been procured that contain more than the minimum required. The 
following chart summarizes the improvement that the specification represents 
compared to standard practice for many of the material types. 

During construction, EPA was unable to find local asphalt plants that could 
produce 25% recycled content asphalt as designed. The quality of the specified 
asphalt from plants unfamiliar with this production became a concern. As an 
alternative, EPA accepted asphalt with slightly lower recycled content which 
incorporated roofing shingle scrap-a waste that is typically difficult to recycle. 



Palette of finish materials used in 
the main facility 


Sample of EPA 
Campus Materials 

• 4 acres of concrete block walls 

• 2 acres of Low-E glass 

• 35 acres of drywall 

• 7 acres of carpet 

• 12 acres of ceiling tile 

• 2,861 interior doors 

• 19 miles of telcom conduit 

What is RMAN? 

RMAN stands for Recovered 
Materials Advisory Notice. It 
provides guidance on recycled 
content materials and was issued 
by the EPA in May 1995. 
Construction materials include: 

• Cement and concrete 
containing fly ash (previously 
issued January 28,1993 as 48 
FR 4230) 

• Building Insulation (previously 
issued February 17, 1989 as 
54 FR 7327) 

• Structural fiberboard 

• Laminate paperboard 

• Plastic pipe and fittings 

• Geotextiles 

• Cement/concrete using 
ground granulated blast 
furnace slag 

• Carpet 

• Floor tiles 

• Patio blocks 

• Hydromulch 


The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 


54 




RMAN Update 

An update was issued in 
November 1997, that added the 
following construction materials 
categories: 

• Latex paint 

• Shower and toilet partitions 

• Parking stops 


How is RMAN Enforced? 

Once the EPA designates items 
that are or can be made with 
recycled content, RCRA section 
6002 requires any procuring 
agency when using appropriated 
federal funds to use the highest 
percentage of recovered material 
practical. 


Pre-Consumer Waste 
(aka in-piant-scrap) 

Comes from material off-cutting, 
damaged material or other 
manufacturing waste. 


Post-Consumer Waste 

Comes from products discarded 
by end users (consumers). 
Examples include newspapers, 
magazines, beverage containers, 
building materials, etc. 


Renewable Materials 

Are replenished at a rate equal to 
or greater than their rate of 
depletion. 


Heavy Metals 

Includes mercury, lead, cadmium, 
thallium, cobalt, nickel and 
aluminum. Most are very toxic and 
persistent in the environment. 


Recycled 100 
Content 



Fiberglass Mineral wool Acoustic Rubber Structural Material 

batt/board insulation/ panel floor fiberboard 

insulation fire safing ceilings tiles 


Specified 



Conventional 


Comparison of Recycled Content Levels Specified with Conventional Materials 


Minimum Required Recycled Content 


Material or Product I Recommended Recycled Content 


Asphaltic concrete paving 

Reinforcing steel in concrete 

Reinforcing bars in precast concrete 

Concrete masonry unit 

Reinforcing bars in concrete unit masonry 

Framing steel 

Fiberglass batt insulation 

Fiberglass board insulation 

Mineral wool insulation 

Mineral wool fire safing insulation 

Gypsum board 

Facing paper of gypsum board 

Mineral fiber sound attenuation blankets 

Steel studs, runners, channels 

Acoustic panel ceilings 

Ceiling suspension systems 

Rubber floor tiles 

Hydromulch 

Structural fiberboard 


25% by weight 1 

60% recycled scrap steel 2 

60% recycled steel 2 

50% recycled content 

60% recycled steel 2 

30% recycled steel 2 

20% recycled glass cutlet 3 

20% recycled glass cullet 3 

75% recycled material (slag) 3 

75% recycled material by weight (slag) 3 

10% recycled or synthetic gypsum 

100% recycled newsprint including post consumer waste 3 

75% recovered material by weight (slag) 3 

60% recycled steel 2 

60% recycled material by weight 

60% recycled material 

90-100% recycled materials 3 

100% recovered materials 3 

80-100% recycled content 3 


' As per North Carolina Department ofTransportation (NCDOT) recommendation. 

2 60% represents the average recycled content for the U.S. steel industry. Use of U.S. manufactured 
steel will meet this requirement. 

3 As per EPA Comprehensive Guideline for Procurement of Products Containing Recovered 
Materials (60 FR 21370, effective 5/1/95) and its corresponding Recovered Materials Advisory 
Notice (RMAN), 5/1/95. 


55 


Design Process: Building Materials 

























Local Materials 

Many materials selected for the EPA Campus were locally manufactured including 
concrete, brick pavers, concrete masonry block and precast wall panels. The 
specification of local materials was a good environmental choice because, all other 
things being equal, it minimized energy use and the pollutants generated during 
transportation. Local materials also are generally less costly and have shorter lead 
times than alternatives that need to be shipped long distances. 

Consideration of local markets also affected the development of the specifications in 
a more general way. As environmental specification requirements such as minimum 
recycled content were being developed, the project team researched the potential for 
local manufacturers to meet those requirements. The team did not want products, 
especially bulky materials such as drywall, to be shipped from remote locations just to 
satisfy an extreme environmental requirement. Consequently, trade-offs were made 
and the final design specifications reflected those products in the local market with 
better-than-average environmental performance. 

Low Toxic and LowVOC Materials 

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are carbon-based chemicals which are in a 
gaseous phase at ambient temperatures. VOCs can include irritants and some 
carcinogens that are commonly found in building materials. VOCs are emitted from 
these materials as a result of the selection of raw materials and intermediate 
chemicals used in manufacturing processes. 

EPA specifications require low-VOC adhesives, finishes, sealants, joint compounds 
and paints. See the following figure for a complete listing of requirements. 
Certifications were also required to document that no heavy metals were present 
in paints, adhesives and sealants. 

For the building occupant, the concern over VOCs involves the extent to which 
they are “off-gassed” into the indoor air from a specific material. VOCs for liquid- 
based products can be measured in grams per liter (g/L). Grams per liter represents 
the total quantity of VOCs in the material; the volatility of the material determines 
how quickly they will evaporate from the material surface. 

Material selection to reduce VOCs in the building interior is an excellent way to 
practice pollution prevention. Many commonly used products have been 
reformulated to be water-based instead of solvent-based. Simply reducing the 
quantity of solvents can lead to performance problems, as was the case when the 
first generation of low-VOC paints and adhesives was developed. However, many of 
the reformulated products today are equal to or superior to their conventional 
solvent-based counterparts. For example, a good quality, high-performance acrylic 
latex paint can outperform the conventional alkyd enamel that has typically been 
used for high-wear applications in all categories of performance: hardness, abrasion 
resistance and washability. With the myriad of options that exist for paints and 
coatings (which are constantly changing), it is extremely important to research the 
available options and reference performance standards when specifying. 


VOCs 

(Volatile Organic Compounds) 

Chemicals that are carbon-based 
and evaporate from material 
surfaces into indoor air at normal 
room temperatures (referred to 
as off-gassing). 


The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 


56 


Performance 
Standards for Paint 

The durability of paints and 
coatings is a critical factor of their 
total life-cycle impact: low-toxic 
paints that require additional coats 
to cover or that must be 
re-coated more often than 
conventional products have lesser 
overall environmental advantages. 

Applicable Testing Standards 
for Interior Paint 
Performance 

• ASTM D2486-89 for 
scrubbability (abrasion 
resistance) 

• ASTM D2805-88 for hiding 
power (opacity) 

• ASTM D3359-90 Method B for 
washability (stain resistance) 


Low-VOC Content Requirements 


Material or Product 

VOC Content 

(Grams/Liter) 

Form Release Agents 

350 

Plastic Laminate Adhesive 

20 

Casework and Millwork Adhesives 

20 

Transparent Wood Finish Systems 

350 

Cast Resin Countertop Silicone Sealant 

20 

Garage Deck Sealer 

600 

Water Based Joint Sealants 

50 

Non-Water Based Joint Sealants 

350 

Portland Cement Plaster 

20 

Gypsum Drywall Joint Compound 

20 

Terrazzo Sealer 

250 

Acoustic Panel Ceiling Finish 

50 

Resilient Tile Flooring Adhesive 

100 

Vinyl Flooring Adhesives 

100 

Carpet Adhesive 

50 

Carpet Seam Sealer 

50 

Water Based Paint & Multicolor Finish Coatings 

150 

Solvent Based Paint 

380 

Performance Water Based Acrylic Coatings 

250 

Pigmented Acrylic Sealers 

250 

Catalyzed Epoxy Coatings 

250 

High Performance Silicone 

250 

Casement Sealant 

50 

Liquid Membrane-forming Curing & Sealing Compound 

350 


57 


Design Process: Building Materials 




Sustainably Harvested Wood 

Wood was used in very limited quantities as an accent material in the new facility. 

In addition, all finished wood millwork and paneling was specified to come from a 
certified sustainable source. All of the species specified are domestic hardwoods. 
Wood that was used has been mounted with clips that allow for future removal and 
reuse as needed. When wood paneling was reviewed in value engineering, the team 
chose to maintain the aesthetic qualities of wood in the design, but opted to use 
half as much as originally intended. 

Resource Recovery 

The impact of resource recovery was addressed throughout the material selection 
and detailing process. The objective was to enhance the potential for future 
recyclability, reuse or salvage. If these options proved impractical, then the potential 
for enhanced biodegradability was considered. Use of metals without alloys, 
mechanical fastening of wood panels and specification of certified recyclable 
carpeting are examples of ways that recycling was encouraged. With a facility that 
will use more than seven acres of carpet, the team believed it was very important to 
be certain that the material could be returned for recycling at the end of its life. 

Site Materials 

When working on a 133-acre site with a building footprint of more than 10 acres, 
the quantities of material generated during site clearing, excavation, roadwork and 
landscaping can become significant. Consequently, every effort was made to consider 
the site when thinking about environmentally preferable materials. Reuse of on-site 
material proved to be an especially sound environmental initiative because it 
conserved resources and eliminated waste at the same time. All land-clearing debris 
was shredded for use as landscaping mulch or as a soil amendment. Excavated rock 
was crushed for use as fill material. The project team also found opportunities to use 
large quantities of recycled materials. For example, concrete aggregate and recycled 
asphalt are used in the roadwork, and the hydromulch is a 100 percent recycled 
cellulosic or wood product. 

Government Procurement Requirements 

Government procurement rules require that a minimum of three products be 
capable of meeting the specification to ensure a competitive bid. While it is good 
practice to ensure competitive bidding on all projects-not just for government 
contracts-it can limit the use of some emerging new “green” products. Although 
this proved to be a challenge for the EPA Campus project, designers were able to 
identify competitive sources for all materials specified. 


Indoor Air Quality 

The quality of indoor air delivered to the breathing zone can influence the health, 
comfort and workplace productivity of a building’s occupants and visitors. To 
ensure that indoor air quality (LAQ) concerns were integrated throughout the design 
process, EPA made design for good IAQ a prominent issue in its request for 
proposals and in its design contract with the A/E. All significant program 
requirements, design criteria and design features were documented in an Indoor Air 
Quality Facility Operations Manual developed by the A/E team, which will provide 
guidance for the IAQ program in the occupied facility. 

Source Control, Source Isolation and Source Dilution 

Traditional methods of ensuring good indoor air quality rely almost exclusively on 
ventilation strategies. In these instances, fresh air is introduced into the space to 


Certifying Sustainably 
Harvested Wood 

The Forest Stewardship Council 
accredits agencies to certify 
forestry operations and chain-of- 
custody wood products 
distributors.Two major FSC- 
accredited agencies include 
Scientific Certification Systems 
and the Rainforest Alliance’s 
Smartwood Program, which has 
a growing number of regional 
affiliates across the United States. 



CERTIFIED 

Wood bams ted from a 
wefl managed forest. 

( >f Oiy Non* 


mm 

WStMIMU mttmt M 

KMWTt««UtT» - V 



SCS FOREST CONSERVATION PROGRAM 



Key Issues to Consider 

• Designate building a non¬ 
smoking facility 

• Test for radon 

• Require full-systems 
commissioning 

• Adopt ASHRAE 55-1992 

• Adopt ASHRAE 62-1989 

• Locate intakes and 
exhaust to avoid 
re-entrainment 

• Limit use of fibrous material 
exposed to the airstream, 
including duct liner 

• Select “low-emission” materials 

• Develop IAQ management plan 
for construction 

• Designate an IAQ manager. 

• Ventilate, but don’t “bake out” 


The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 


58 






What is aVOC? 

Volatile Organic Compounds 
(VOCs) are carbon-based 
chemicals that contain carbon 
molecules are volatile enough to 
evaporate or “off-gas” from 
materials surfaces into indoor air 
at normal room temperatures. 
VOCs include Methane, Ethane, 
Methylene Chloride, 

1,1,1 -Trichloroethane, CFCs, 
HCFCs, HFCs, Formaldehyde and 
other chemical compounds. 


Source Control 

Eliminates potential contaminants 
at the source, preventing their 
entry into the building. 


Source Isolation 

Physically separates potential 
sources of contamination from the 
airstream. 


Source Dilution and Removal 

Utilizes ventilation and filtration to 
dilute and remove contaminants in 
the airstream. 



dilute contaminants that accumulate over time. A more proactive and cost-effective 
strategy involves a life cycle approach to indoor air quality. The EPA campus 
approach employs source control, source isolation, and source dilution for design 
and construction, together with an integrated LAQ management plan for the 
operations and maintenance phase. 

Source control strategies eliminate possible sources of contamination before they are 
introduced into the building. Examples include designating a building as non¬ 
smoking, limiting the use of exposed friable fibrous materials which can become 
airborne, and avoiding possible sites of microbial growth. The judicious selection of 
building materials can minimize emissions of VOCs, toxic chemicals and other 
irritating substances. 

Source isolation strategies control sources of contamination that cannot be 
completely eliminated. Office buildings, for example, will contain copy machines, 
food preparation areas, loading docks and toilet rooms. In addition to these sources, 
the EPA Campus has chemical and biological laboratories that could pose significant 
risk to the air supply in the case of an accidental spill or release. All of these areas are 
separately ventilated to the outside so that exhaust air is not recirculated into the 
buildings. Building pressurization and appropriate location of building openings 
further reinforces source isolation. To ensure proper isolation of laboratory exhaust 
stacks from air intake vents, EPA built a scale model and ran a wind tunnel study to 
test worst-case atmospheric conditions. As a result of the study, the exhaust risers were 
extended 10 feet higher into the air. 

Source dilution, the final method in the hierarchy of LAQ control strategies, refers to 
ventilation and filtration of building indoor air. Flexible design combined with 
commissioning at the end of construction ensures ventilation effectiveness. Temporary 
ventilation is used to purge the building of contaminants during construction. By 
ensuring ventilation effectiveness, indoor air quality is enhanced and energy 
efficiency is improved. 

Designing for Indoor Air Quality 

Factors that impact LAQ include outdoor air quality, site conditions, building and 
HVAC design, interior design, materials selection and construction procedures. Design 
for LAQ requires a strong dialogue between all members of the team. An IAQ advocate 
should be identified to champion IAQ issues in project team work sessions. An IAQ 
manager also should be identified on the owners team to track issues as design and 
construction progress, and to help manage the LAQ program in the completed facility. 

IAQ Facilities Operation Manual 

The EPA project team created the Indoor Air Quality Facilities Operation Manual to 
document design decisions that will impact IAQ throughout the life of the facility, so 
future building renovations will not undermine those features. This manual also 
describes IAQ-related construction provisions including IAQ testing of materials, 
sequence of finish installation, temporary ventilation, baseline LAQ testing and 
commissioning. Preprinted forms, including HVAC Equipment Inspection Forms and 
an LAQ Management Checklist were developed to guide building operators throughout 
the occupancy phase. 

Indoor Air Quality vs. Energy Efficiency 

The design team took great care to balance energy efficiency with good indoor air 
quality. While an abundant supply of fresh air with frequent air circulation will help 
promote good LAQ, it can be energy-intensive. The challenge for the EPA campus 
project was to strike a balance-optimizing IAQ performance without creating an 
excessive energy demand. 


59 


Design Process: Indoor Air Quality 



Fortunately, some strategies promote good 1AQ while at the same time saving 
energy. For example, outside air economizers provide EPA’s offices with “free 
cooling when weather conditions are right. These economizers are digitally 
controlled and filter the outdoor air to remove mold spores, pollen and other 
contaminants while bringing in increased quantities of fresh air.” 

EPA’s offices are conditioned with a simple, low-cost “straight” VAV system. This 
was deemed to be a better choice than a fan-powered VAV system, which uses more 
energy and demands more maintenance. Using indoor air modeling based on this 
system, the design team calculated the air circulation rates that would be required to 
meet ASHRAE recommendations for fresh air supply. In order to achieve 
ASFIRAE’s recommended minimum of 20 CFM outdoor air per person, the system 
could be set as low as only one air change per hour (ACH). But since air movement 
is just as important as fresh air in achieving good IAQ, the VAV system was set to a 
minimum of 2.25 air changes per hour (ACH)-about twice the minimum indicated 
by using the ASHRAE standard alone. 


Factors That 

Impact Indoor Air Quality 

Outdoor Air Quality 

• Building exhaust from adjacent 
buildings 

• Vehicle exhaust from adjacent 
roadways 

• Releases from adjacent 
industrial and agricultural sites 

• Soil gas (radon) 

Site Conditions 

• Vehicle exhaust 

• Pesticides and fertilizers 

• Sporulating plants 


The office heating and air conditioning system has also been designed to constantly 
supply a minimum of 25% outdoor air. Based on actual demand, however, this 
percentage can be increased. Carbon dioxide monitors continually sample the air in 
return plenums to detect C02 buildup in offices and meeting spaces. If levels are 
high, indicating increased human activity in the space and a higher demand for fresh 
air, the ventilation system will respond by bringing in more outside air. By preventing 
the excessive use of outdoor air and supplying more fresh air when needed, the C02 
monitoring approach will save energy while promoting healthy IAQ. 

Low-Emission Materials 

Chemicals present in building materials and products can lead to the off-gassing of 
substances that are irritants and, in some cases, even health hazards in the interior 
environment. Off-gassing is measured in emission rates or emission factors, which 
can vary significantly for similar materials by different manufacturers. Without 
testing, emission factors are difficult to ascertain. The EPA project team sought 
published reports of previous studies and some material manufacturers were willing 
to share testing data, however the information was still scarce. 

In the absence of testing data, one of the few resources for evaluating chemical 
content is the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) on which the manufacturer is 
required to list all chemical constituents making up at least one percent of the 
material, and not deemed “proprietary.” For liquid-based materials such as paint and 
adhesives, the total concentration of VOCs is listed in grams per liter. However, the 
MSDS is limited in that the manufacturers may omit chemicals that they consider 
trade secrets, and the MSDS does not list compounds that result from reactions 
among the constituent chemicals. 


Building and HVAC Design 

• Location of fresh air intakes 
and exhaust 

• Interior pollutant-generating 
sources, e.g., print rooms, 
loading docks 

• Air and moisture flows through 
the exterior wall 

• Fibrous insulation exposed to 
the airstream, e.g., internal 
duct liner 

• Ventilation and filtration 
standards 

Interior Design 

• Air circulation 

• Location of copy machines 

• Housekeeping equipment and 
product storage 

Materials Selection 

• Fibrous materials 

• Microbial contamination 

• Emissions ofVOCs 

• Toxic components 


IAQ Testing of Materials 

IAQ testing and modeling gave the team an indication of what air quality would 
ultimately be like in the building. The purpose was to determine the composition 
and the rate of chemical emissions. The testing is typically conducted in either a 
large or a small-scale environmental chamber that has been carefully designed and 
instrumented. Using a predictive modeling tool developed by EPA staff called 
EXPOSURE, the emissions testing results were then used to predict the ultimate 
concentration of indoor air contaminants that would result over time, based on the 
anticipated ventilation rates. 


Construction Procedures 

• Proper installation and 
balancing of equipment 

• The sink effect 

IAQ Materials Testing 

• Paint on gypsum board 

• Carpet and adhesive 

• Ceiling tile 

• Fireproofing 


The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 


60 


The team established thresholds for the maximum allowable concentrations of 
contaminants in the indoor air, based on health effects research and an 
understanding of what is possible to achieve in a new building with materials 
commonly available in the market. These thresholds were used to screen selected 
finishes and as testing criteria for overall indoor air quality in the finished facility. At 
the end of construction, ambient air sampling and testing were required to be 
performed at 16 locations throughout the office areas of the new EPA facility. 


Natural Resource Building, 
Olympia, Washington 

The Natural Resources Building 
(NRB) is a 300,000-square-foot, 
six-story office building completed 
in Washington state in 1992. 
During its design, construction and 
commissioning, three steps were 
taken to promote good IAQ: 

• The HVAC system was designed 
to the requirements of ASHRAE 
62-89 

• To avoid potential high-emitting 
materials in the building, major 
materials used in the 
construction, finishing and 
furnishing of the building were 
required to be tested in an 
emission test chamber 

• To allow all materials emissions 
to decay, the empty building was 
flushed out with 100% outside 
air for 90 days prior to 
occupancy 


Maximum Indoor Air Concentration Standards 


Indoor Contaminants 


Allowable Air Concentration Levels* 


Carbon Monoxide (CO) 

Carbon Dioxide (CO 2 ) 

Airborne Mold and Mildew 
Formaldehyde 

Total Volatile Organic Compounds (TVOC) 
4 Phenylocyclohexene (4-PC)*** 

Total Particulates (PM) 

Regulated Pollutants 
Other Pollutants 


< 9 ppm 

< 800 ppm 

Simultaneous indoor & outdoor readings 

< 20 gg/m 3 ** 

< 200 gg/m 3 ** 

< 3 gg/m 3 

< 20 gg/m 3 

< NAAQS 

< 5% ofTLV-TWA**** 


* All levels must be achieved prior to acceptance of building.The levels do not account 
for contributions from office furniture, occupants and occupant activity. 

** Above outside air concentrations. 

*** 4-PC is an odorous contaminant constituent in carpets with styrene-butadiene-latex rubber (SBR). 
**** TLV - TWA = Threshold Limit Value - Time Weight Average. 


The project team originally specified that all materials used in large quantities with 
potential to impact indoor air quality be chamber-tested by the contractor, with 
results to be used by EPA to model predicted concentrations of chemicals. Based on 
concerns about the cost of this extensive testing program, however, the requirements 
were revised to focus on the four materials most commonly exposed to the air in the 
building. These four materials were required to be tested as they would be assembled 
in the building-paint applied to gypsum wallboard, carpet adhered to concrete, 
fireproofing spray on steel, and acoustical ceiling tile. 

Construction Procedures 

EPA specifications require many of the same IAQ-related construction procedures 
that were employed by the Natural Resources Building in Olympia, Washington. 
Some changes were made, however, based on the lessons learned in construction of 
the Washington project. 

Prior to construction, the contractor for the EPA Campus was required to 
submit a schedule that described the sequence of material and finish installation. 
Construction sequencing recommended that “wet” materials that release indoor air 
contaminants as they cure, be applied before the installation of “fuzzy” materials 
that absorb airborne contaminants and re-emit them over time. Temporary 
ventilation during construction further protected the building from absorbing 
contaminants during the construction process. From the time the building was 


61 


Design Process: Indoor Air Quality 



BUILDING 

ENCLOSED 


TEMPERATURE IAQ 
AND HUMIDITY TESTING 
CONTROL 


SUBSTANTIAL 

COMPLETION 


100 % 

COMPLETION 


VENTILA 
1111111111111111111 


TE WITH I 
1111111111111 


10% OUTS I a 
1111111111111111 


E AIR 
11111111 


III 


I 


NORMAL 

MODE 


INSTALL 

OFF-GASSING 

MATERIALS 


INSTALL 

FUZZY 

MATERIALS 


INDOORAIR 
SAMPLING 
AND ANALYSIS 


INSTALL 

FURNISHINGS 


OCCUPY 

BUILDING 


PAINTS 

SEALANTS 

COMPOSITES 

ADHESIVES 


FABRIC COVERED 
PANELS 

CARPET 

CEILING TILE 


GYPSUM WALL BOARD 


PROJECT TIMELINE AND MILESTONES 


Generic Schedule Sequence of Finishes 


substantially enclosed until occupancy, the building was required to be ventilated 
with 100 percent outside air. Any ductwork used during construction was required 
to be cleaned prior to occupancy. 

The EPA project team used an alternative to the extended 90-day 
post-construction flush-out period that was employed by the Natural Resources 
Building. Specifications for the EPA Campus required the contractor to ventilate 
during construction and perform baseline indoor air quality testing prior to 
acceptance to determine whether indoor air concentrations comply with maximum 
allowable limits (see chart below). If materials are installed as specified and 


What is the “Sink Effect”? 

The sink effect refers to the 
absorption of chemicals by a 
surface, which slowly releases 
them into the building atmosphere 
over time. Finishes with the 
highest accessible surface area 
(e.g., “fuzzy” materials such as 
carpet, upholstery and ceiling tiles) 
per unit mass tend to have the 
highest sink effect. 


Sequences of 
Finish Installation 

Wet “off-gassing” materials must 
be installed before dry or fuzzy 
“sink” materials to the greatest 
extent possible. 

“Wet” materials include, but are 
not limited to: adhesives, sealants, 
glazing compounds, particle board 
and paint. 

“Dry” or fuzzy materials include, 
but are not limited to: carpet and 
padding, ceiling tiles and fabric- 
wrapped acoustical panels. 


Predicted TVOC Concentration During 30-Day Flush-Out 
1.8 _ 

1.6 _ 



EXPOSURE Model 

Modeling courtesy of Jason M. Cortell & Associates 


What is “Flush-Out”? 

Flush-out refers to increased 
ventilation to remove, or “flush- 
out” contaminants from the 
building. Flush-out is best 
performed with 100% outside air 
that is exhausted directly to the 
outside and not recirculated. 
Scheduling of flush-outs during 
construction, pre-occupancy and 
before start-up after the systems 
have been down will enhance 
indoor air quality. 


Why Not “Bake Out” 

Running building at high 
temperatures post-construction to 
“bake” chemicals out could 
possibly cause unusual chemical or 
biological conditions, and is not 
recommended. 


The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 


62 



















Indoor Air Quality Facility 

Operations Manual 

• Offers guidance for provision 
and maintenance of IAQ for the 
new EPA Campus during 
construction, pre-occupancy and 
post-occupancy 

• Documents the design criteria 
employed and major design 
decisions made 

• Describes lAQ-related 
construction provisions 
including IAQ emissions testing 
of materials, sequence of finish 
installation, temporary 
ventilation, base-line IAQ testing 
and commissioning 

• Contains HVAC equipment 
inspection forms, IAQ 
management checklist and other 
forms 


Design Decisions Matrix 


Item 

Decision 

| impact on IAQ 

Siting of Building 

Locate exhaust downwind from 
outside air intakes and separate 
by more than 100 feet. 

Minimizes reentrainment of 
laboratory exhaust at air 
intakes. 


Maximize separation between 
parking areas and air intakes. 

Reduces potential vehicular 
exhaust entering the 
building. 

Location of Parking Garages 

Locate parking structure away 
from the building. 

Reduces the potential for 
vehicular exhaust entering 
the building 

Laboratory Exhaust Stacks 

Stack height increase to 30' based 
on wind tunnel testing. 

Minimizes reentrainment of 
laboratory exhausts into 
air intakes. 

Radon 

Site specific testing confirmed 
low levels of radon. 

Confirmed that radon levels 
are safe. 

Delivery/Loading Zone 

Maintain negative pressure in 
loading area, positive pressure 
in building. 

Eliminates entrainment of 
delivery vehicle exhaust. 

Landscaping 

Low maintenance and 
non-sporulating plants selected. 

Plants used as a barrier for 
vehicle exhaust. 

Intake of spores, fertilizer or 
chemicals entering the 
building is reduced. 

Minimizes entrainment of 
vehicular exhaust. 

Laboratory Fume Hoods 

Install flow guages and alarms. 

Provides warning of air 
contaminants present in 
laboratory areas due to loss 
of air flow. 

Acoustical Insulation of Ducts 

Ductwork increased in size to 
eliminate need for acoustical 
insulation. In select areas, mylar 
coated silencers are used as 
ductwork transitions out of 
equipment rooms. 

Minimizes potential for release of 
fibers into the airstream and 
possible contamination of 
the HVAC system (duct liners 
are difficult to monitor and clean 
and can be sites of microbial 
contamination). 

Moisture Accumulation 

Install drain pans pitched toward 
drain pipe. 

Reduces moisture, which 
could result in introduction 
of bacterial contamination 
into HVAC system. 

Humidity Control 

No moisture carry-over into 
system. 

Minimizes moisture in HVAC 
system and resultant 
bacterial contaminants. 

Corrosion Inhibitors 

Inhibitors do not contain 
volatile amines. 

Eliminates exposure to 
certain air contaminants. 

Fireproofing Spray 

Cementitious mix specified for 
return air plenum. 

Helps minimize potential for 
airborne fibers. 


ventilation is provided during construction, the building should pass the test shortly 
after the building construction is complete. See the EXPOSURE modeling on the 
following page for results of a study indicating the building VOC levels should fall 
within the acceptable range about 12 to 14 days after construction is complete. If 
limits were not met, the contractor would be required to ventilate the building until 
it met the required limits and bear the expense of retesting. 


63 


Design Process: Risk Prevention 






This EXPOSURE model predicted the 
concentration of VOC in the indoor air 
over a 30-day flush out period beginning after 
construction is complete. Furniture was 
projected to be installed on the 6th day after 
flush-out began, and VOCs reached acceptable 
levels by the 14 day. Although this analysis 
considered “typical” furniture available from the 
marketplace, EPA further extended its IAQ 
protections into furniture procurement. The 
products in EPA’s new offices were, like the 
products used during construction, required to 
have low VOC and formaldehyde 
emissions.The IAQ Facility Operations Manual, 
developed by the EPA project team, includes a 
design decisions matrix outlining exterior and 
interior design components of the new campus 
and the impact these decisions had on IAQ. 



Key Issues to Consider 

• Adopt a philosophy of 
avoidance toward all risks to 
human health and well-being 

• Predict EMF levels at different 
locations in the building; 
identify major sources 

• Increase occupant distance 
from major sources of EMF 

• Modify floor plan to buffer 
spaces of regular long-term use 
from major EMF sources 

• Have soils tested for radon if 
building is located in a region 
where radon occurs 

• If necessary, incorporate a 
radon mitigation system into 
the building design 


Risk Prevention 

Building-related health risks are often difficult to recognize prior to the scientific 
discoveries that provide a verifiable link to health effects. However, the high cost of 
asbestos and lead remediation has building owners, operators and occupants 
thinking carefully about how to avoid exposing themselves to similar financial risk 
from other building-related problems in the future. Consequently, the team for the 
EPA Campus carefully considered the potential risk associated with electromagnetic 
fields (EMFs) and radon gas. 

Electromagnetic Fields 

The team reviewed available literature on EMFs and their threat to health and 
determined that while EMF radiation could be measured, its threat to humans had 
not yet been proven or disproved. Nevertheless, the team recommended adopting a 
philosophy of prudent avoidance toward EMF risks and undertook modifications of 
the building design to reduce occupant exposure. 

EMF radiation can be mitigated by distance and by shielding. Distance offers 
maximum protection and is “low-tech,” while the costs associated with shielding are 
high and the results are difficult to measure. Consequently, the design team chose to 
create “buffer zones” to reduce prolonged exposures in portions of the building that 
are occupied for long periods of time, such as the laboratories and offices. 

The largest sources of EMF were identified as the buildings transformers, the 
electrical rooms with their many cables, and the electrical conduit that was routed 
under the building atria. As a first step circulation and utility spaces were used to 
maximize the separation between a source and any potential receptors. An analysis 
revealed that the conduit under the floor of the atrium would not be problematic 
because the time for possible exposure in that circulation space is minimal. However, 
the electrical rooms had to be relocated next to restrooms and utility spaces and away 
from occupied areas such as offices, laboratories or meeting spaces. 

Because EMF radiation diminishes geometrically over distance, the floor of the 
main electrical room was lowered so that a separation of at least six feet could be 
made between the electrical transformers and building occupants on the office floor 
above. Research has shown that EMF exposures are minimal beyond a distance of 
six feet from the source. 


Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) 

Electric and magnetic fields may 
occur alone or in combination and 
are a form of non-ionizing 
radiation. Electricity flowing in a 
wire or being used in an appliance 
creates electric and magnetic 
fields around them, as do power 
lines and electrical equipment 
used in commercial buildings. 



The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 


64 























Radon Prevention 
Measures Commonly 
Used in Commercial 
Buildings 

• Active soil depressurization 

• Pressurization of the building 
using the HVAC system 

• Sealing all major radon entry 
routes 


Key Issues 

• Design in modules to minimize 
construction waste 

• Develop construction waste 
recycling plan, including salvage 
of existing construction 
materials 

• Mulch landscape debris and 
other organic waste on site, 
both during construction and 
occupancy 

• Develop hazardous materials 
management plan for both 
construction and occupancy 

• Develop a recyclable materials 
collection system for building 
users 

• Minimize the amount of 
building to be built 

• Consider renovation and reuse 
as alternatives to new 
construction 

• Focus on adaptability of 
structures 


Radon Gas 

Radon is a colorless, odorless radioactive gas produced by the radioactive decay of 
radium-226, an element found in varying concentrations in many soils and bedrock. 
As a gas, radon can easily move through small spaces between particles of soil and thus 
enter a building, reaching levels many times higher than outdoor levels. 

Radon levels are usually measured in picocuries per liter of air (pCi/L). It is 
currently recommended that radon levels be reduced to less than 4 pCi/L, if not as 
close to ambient levels as feasible (0.4 pCi/L). The radiation released by the decay of 
radon isotopes can damage lung tissue and can increase ones risk of developing lung 
cancer. The health risk depends upon both the levels and the length of exposure to 
radon decay products. 

Radon typically enters a building from the soil through pressure-driven transport, 
where the conditions in the building draw air up and into an opening. Radon can 
also enter a building through diffusion, well water and construction materials. 

While radon mitigation is an issue that most people associate with residential 
construction, the risks for commercial building occupants are real. Because radon 
gas is naturally occurring in the soils of some portions of North Carolina, EPA 
believed that it was prudent to have its site tested for radon gas. While EPA was 
prepared to take action if necessary, the tests proved that radon was not present on 
the site and that no mitigation was needed. 

Waste Management 

The EPA Campus is designed to optimize waste management opportunities during 
design, construction and operation. Waste management occurs on many levels, 
beginning with efficient use of resources, a design approach that maximizes building 
longevity, and a thorough and systematic approach to reuse, recycling and 
responsible disposal of waste materials. 

Efficient Building Design 

Efficient building design conserves resources and reduces waste through design 
efficiencies. This issue is important when considering space planning efficiencies as 
well as volume, which standard net-to-gross calculations often overlook. For 
example, “interstitial” planning is a common strategy for providing services to 
laboratory areas. This approach requires extra ceiling height above the lab space 
through which services are routed. The overall effect is that the floor-to-floor height 
is boosted by as much as five to six feet in all lab areas, as well as in office areas that 
fall within the laboratory block in order to accommodate the necessary services. 

After reviewing the options, the EPA project team chose to make use of a service 
corridor to deliver utilities and accommodate future changes. As a result, the overall 
height of the building and total building volume was reduced, material 
consumption was lowered and access to the utilities was enhanced. 

Waste Reduction 

Modular design that is coordinated with standard building material dimensions can 
greatly reduce waste from trimming. Consequently, standard-size building materials 
were used wherever possible in the design and detailing of the EPA facility to 
minimize waste in manufacture and installation. Use of standard slopes for tapered 
roof insulation, for example, decreases waste by as much as 50 percent. 

Increased Building Longevity 

While it is common in the design and construction industry to design for a 30-year 
life cycle with cost paybacks limited to a three-five year time frame, EPA has a long- 


65 


Design Process: Waste Management 


term interest in this facility. In addition, the project team recognized that the actual 
use of a building often exceeds the projected design timeframes requiring extensive 
refurbishments and maintenance. To address these issues within the context of 
sustainability, the new facility was conceived as a “100-year’ building and designed 
accordingly. Key elements like the facility’s structure, the cladding, the flashing and 
the fireproofing are intended to survive with minimum repair for the projected life. 
The overall consequences of the extended design are a reduction in materials usage 
and the increased adaptability over the life cycle of the building. 

Building Adaptability 

Designing for adaptability is important because even if a building’s physical 
structure is long-lived, overly specific building designs that cannot adapt to 
changing needs can become obsolete before their time. Ample ceiling height, a 
generous column bay and good access to daylight make the EPA facility an easily 
adaptable structure. Provisions have been made to accommodate growth of 
laboratory programs within the laboratory block itself. Approximately 20 percent of 
the space in the laboratory buildings is occupied by offices. This office space is 
convenient for lab workers but also serves as a built-in buffer for growth. If office 
space needs grow and lab needs shrink, more offices can be accommodated in the 
lab building. This “swing space’’ was important to creating a flexible facility design. 

Collection and Handling of Recyclables 

The EPA Campus has been designed to accommodate the recycling of paper, glass, 
aluminum, plastic and cardboard. Convenient collection locations have been 
provided near areas that generate large quantities of recyclable waste (such as copy 
rooms and galleys). These areas are located near elevators to aid collection. 
Consequently, collection areas were located in copy rooms and building break 
rooms where the majority of recyclables will be generated. In addition, the break 
rooms were located directly adjacent to the service elevator lobby, and the copy 
rooms were less than 50 feet away. The service elevator is used by janitorial staff to 
transport the recyclables to the loading dock via an underground service tunnel that 
moves material on electric carts. This means that recyclables can be transported to 
the staging area at the loading dock without having to pass through any public 
areas. The loading dock has been designed with ample room for staging of 
recyclables before pickup, and a compactor for cardboard has been provided. 

Recycling and waste reduction is well integrated into the cafeteria design as well. 
Reusable china and flatware will be used in the cafeteria. Recycling collection areas 
will be built into the tray drop area in the cafeteria, and the vending areas. An 
organic waste recycler will be used for pre- and post-consumer compostables from 
food service. 

Recycling Chutes 

Recycling chutes are vertical shaftways that allow recyclables to be dropped to a 
collection area below. Chutes were initially evaluated for the EPA facility, with the 
service corridor acting as a lower-level zone to manage collection. Unfortunately, 
recycling chutes are most efficient in predominantly vertical buildings where 
relatively closely spaced chutes can accommodate occupants. However, in the five- 
story, approximately quarter-mile long floor plan of the EPA facility, recycling 
chutes were a costly and redundant vertical transport system that would have 
become a maintenance burden. Recycling chutes can also become maintenance 
problems if the wrong wastes are sent through. For example, sticky residue from soft 
drinks can attract pests or promote the growth of bacteria and mold. Instead, 
recycling containers were located near elevators, and the underground service tunnel 
was used to provide direct access to the loading dock. 



Flexible Laboratory 



Plan of typical floor circulation flow 


The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 


66 









- 


**TV*U/ 

TYtV^t:¥ 


MW 




Mode! Specifications 

tor Construction Waste Reduction. Reuse, and Recycling 


© 

Mortal* J Council ol GovoinmonH 

P 0 lo> 12274 • «»»*orch Trtanglo forti NC 27704 
P*on* 414-544 0551 • Pox 414-544-4340 

July ms 


Cover ofWasteSpec, 
published 1995 


Reuse of On-Site Materials 

All material generated on the site from land-clearing activity and excavation is 
reused on site. Land-clearing debris remaining after the valuable materials have been 
sold as timber is shredded for use as mulch. The excess material is composted with 
topsoil as a soil amendment. Excavated topsoil is being stockpiled for reuse and 
excavated rock is crushed for use as structural fill. 

Construction Waste Recycling 

Construction waste occupies about 25 percent of the space at municipal landfills in 
the United States. To reduce the demand on landfills, construction and demolition 
waste landfills were created to offer a lower cost alternative to municipal landfilling 
for the construction industry. Debris that is essentially clean and inert can be 
dumped for a lesser fee than municipal waste because the landfill does not 
require a liner. 

Three basic types of construction waste recycling are on-site separation, 
phase-based sorting by hauler and off-site sorting of mixed waste. Before developing 
a specification, research should include landfill and recycling tipping fees and the 
availability of recycling companies that will accept recyclable material. WasteSpec is 
a model waste specification that was created by the Triangle J Council of 
Governments in Research Triangle Park. The information applies to all parts of the 
country and a resource list in the appendix provides names and contact phone 
numbers for recycling coordinators for all 50 states, the Canadian provinces, 
Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico. 


CONSTRUCTION WASTE MATERIALS 
SPECIFIED FOR RECYCLING 

1 Land clearing debris: Solid waste generated solely from land 
clearing operations, such as stumps and trees 

2 Concrete, masonry and other inert fill material: Concrete, 
brick, rock, clean soil not intended for other on-site use, broken 
asphalt pavement containing no ABC stone, clay concrete, and other 
inert material 

3 Metals: Metal scrap including iron, steel, copper, brass and aluminum. 

4 Untreated wood: Unpainted, untreated dimensional lumber, 
plywood, oriented strand board, masonite, particleboard and wood 
shipping pallets 

5 Gypsum wallboard scrap: Excess drywall construction materials 
including cuttings, other scrap and excess material 

6 Salvaged Materials: Reusable lumber, fixtures and building supplies 

7 Cardboard: Clean, corrugated cardboard such as used for 
packaging, etc. 

8 Paper: Discarded office refuse such as unwanted files, 
correspondence, etc. 

9 Plastic buckets: Containers for various liquid and semi-solid or 
viscous construction materials and compounds 

10 Beverage containers: Aluminum, glass and plastic containers 


67 


Design Process: Waste Management 













The EPA project team chose to use on-site separation because clean separated 
recyclables have the highest value and many haulers will collect the separated 
material in the RTP area. The EPA Construction Waste specification lists materials 
recycled and requires the contractor to develop a construction waste management 
plan to be approved prior to the start of construction. 

Gypsum Grinding 

Gypsum can be problematic in landfills because it forms hydrogen sulfide gas under 
anaerobic conditions. The best way to solve the problem is through recycling and 
keeping the gypsum out of landfills. North Carolina’s RTP area is one of the few 
regions in the country with an active gypsum recycling industry. The recycled 
material is not being reformed into gypsum at this time, but it is being made into 
chemical absorbents such as those used in cat litter. Gypsum also makes an excellent 
soil amendment if it is ground finely and used in the proper quantities. 

The EPA Construction Waste specification gives the contractor the option of 
recycling gypsum or grinding it for use on the site. For on-site application as a soil 
amendment, 50 pounds per 1,000 square feet, or approximately one ton per acre, of 
material ground to a fine particle size can be incorporated into the soil surface. This 
quantity can be increased if a soil analysis is reviewed by and approval granted from 
the Solid Waste section of the North Carolina Department of Environment and 
Natural Resources. 


Construction 

Most construction processes impact the building site and beyond through 
excavation and related soil erosion, disruption of vegetation, wildlife habitat and 
topography, compaction of the soil from transportation onto the site, drainage into 
nearby water bodies, and even contamination of the site by hazardous materials 
when not properly controlled. Other environmental issues include construction 
waste, energy used during the construction processes and the effects of material 
installation on building indoor air quality. 

The impact of these construction processes can be minimized through the creation 
and implementation of effective construction management plans, including rigorous 
employee education. Just as important, the general contractor should join the team 
as a partner with a stake in meeting the environmental goals of the project. 



Groundbreaking ceremony, October 1997 


The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 


68 



Plant rescue 



Plant rescue 


Partnering for Construction 

Prior to construction, EPA and the General Services Administration (GSA) held a 
partnering session with the general contractor and A/E representatives involved in 
construction administration. Typical partnering focuses on safety, quality, schedule 
and budget. For the EPA project, the environment was placed on equal footing. The 
environmental goals for the project were discussed and a training video on 
environmentally friendly construction practices was shown. This training video, 
produced in both English and Spanish, became required viewing for every 
construction worker on site. 

The video describes the broad range of environmental initiatives included in the 
project, including environmentally preferable material specifications, tree protection, 
top soil preservation, construction practices to limit potential for contamination of 
future indoor air quality, and waste separation and recycling. Site workers and 
managers learned not just what is expected of them but why it is important, in the 
hope of enlisting each of them as willing partners in the creation of an 
environmentally friendly construction site. During clearing, grading and concrete 
production, no material left the site as waste, signaling successful reduction and 
reuse of materials. 

Plant Rescue 

While every effort was made to minimize the amount of land that had to be cleared 
for the project, EPA utilized plant rescues to help limit the impact of clearing by 
physically relocating plant material away from the construction limits before it was 
destroyed. A plant rescue involves volunteers entering an area slated for clearing, in 
this case the project site, to remove plants that otherwise will be bulldozed during 
the construction. 

A delay in project start-up from winter 1996 to early summer 1997 afforded the 
perfect window of opportunity for a plant rescue operation, as spring is the ideal 
time to transplant native plants to maximize their chances for survival. Together 
with their neighbors, the National Institutes for Environmental Health Sciences 
(NIEHS), with help from the North Carolina Botanical Gardens at Chapel Hill, 
EPA saved more than 3,500 plants during several weekends in April and May 1997. 
Many plants were transplanted to the NIEHS Campus by volunteer employees to 
enrich the wooded understory in front of the NIEHS main building. The rest of the 
plants were donated to the Botanical Gardens and relocated by volunteers to public 
and private gardens in the area. 

Reuse of Land-Clearing Debris 

Land clearing generates enormous quantities of biodegradable and potentially useful 
organic material, none of which need be lost to landfills. During the clearing of the 
EPA site, the contractor successfully salvaged all cleared timber for either sawlogs or 
pulpwood, highlighting the usefulness of precious wood resources. The remaining 
woody debris was ground into mulch. Often the topsoil and mulch were mixed to 
facilitate composting of the mulch and amending the topsoil for future use on the site. 


Limbs, stumps and other debris resulting from the site clearing operation was 
stacked up ready to be ground into mulch by portable tub grinders. With 
conventional construction, piles like these would be burned on the site, and the 
stumps would be hauled to a local landfill. On the EPA project, none of the clearing 
and grubbing wastes were disposed of off site, and no burning was allowed. 


69 


Design Process: Construction 














Land-clearing debris 


Rock Crushing 

In addition to the reuse of plant material from the construction site, reuse of 
excavated soil and rock from excavation debris reduces both material waste and 
transportation from hauling off-site. The contractor has used portable rock 
crushers on site to process rock from site excavations as well as scrap concrete, later 
in construction. There are two machines: the first is the actual crusher, which 
takes rocks up to 24" diameter and discharges material smaller than 3'. The 
second machine is the sieve and screen, which takes the crusher product and 
separates the unwanted gradations and fractions to produce specific aggregates. 

Although the excavated rock and weathered rock may not be durable enough to 
use as road aggregate, the contractor has used the product in his structural fills and 
backfill throughout the site. The aggregate material produced on site has been 
used for temporary haul roads and access during inclement weather. To date, the 
contractor has not hauled any rock waste from the project. 



Debris grinding with tub grinder 


The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 


70 





Rock crusher 

On-Site Concrete Batch Plant 

The construction contract offered the contractor the option to erect an on-site 
plant, provided it would require no additional clearing. An on-site plant was 
chosen due to economics and control over the supply. A portable concrete batch 
plant was erected on the site, in the south surface lot for the National Computer 
Center. One of the contractor’s first activities was to rough grade this parking lot, 
the largest surface lot in the project, to prepare it for the batch plant. 

Tremendous environmental benefits are realized by this decision, including the 
elimination of an estimated 75,000 highway miles of concrete transit truck traffic 
and a savings of 10,000 gallons of fuel. 



On-site concrete batch plant 

RotoReclaimer 

The RotoReclaimer is a device installed at the concrete batch plant to eliminate 
concrete delivery truck washout wastes. The system is a prefabricated unit consisting 
of a rotating drum, conveyors and settling tanks. The entire process is self contained 
and generates no wastes. Like the batch plant itself, this device was not required by 
the contract but was something the contractor chose to employ. The environmental 
benefits of the decision, however, are apparent regardless of the motive. 


71 


Design Process: Construction 
















The RotoReclaimer collects wastewater from the concrete mixer to wash and 
separate aggregate. 


When an empty concrete transit mixer returns to the plant from the placement, its 
ramp is backed up to the stand pipe to be washed out. The RotoReclaimer pumps 
the reclaimed water into the truck mixer drum to clean it out. The waste slurry is 
then dumped into the center of the rotating drum of the RotoReclaimer, where it 
is washed and the fine and coarse aggregates are separated. The cleaned aggregates 
exit the device on two conveyors and are collected in stockpiles for reuse in the 
batching operation. The wash water is pumped into a series of three holding tanks 
where it settles to allow the cement to settle out. Clean water is recovered from the 
final tank and returned to the system to wash the next truck. Periodically, the 
settling tanks are allowed to dry and the solids are cleaned out to be processed 
through the rock crusher with the site rock and then reused. 

Salvage of Demolition Materials for Reuse 

New construction rarely addresses the reuse of salvaged materials, an important 
waste-reduction strategy. At the central utility plant, the existing precast concrete 
panels on the south walls had to be removed to make room for the plant 
expansion. The contractor removed the panels intact, loaded them directly to a 



Dismantling precast concrete panels for reuse in plant expansion 


The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 


72 


















waiting flatbed truck and stored them on the site to reinstall, where possible, on 
the expanded plant. This action saves materials, fabrication, delivery, and disposal 
costs compared with traditional demolition and replacement. 

Construction Waste Recycling 

Using aggressive programs to separate wastes at their sources, the contractors 
recovered 80% of the waste generated on site. Including site preparation wastes, 
this amounted to about 20 million pounds of resource material that would 
normally have been sent as “waste” to landfills. Separate waste hoppers were 
provided for drywall, metal, cardboard, wood and other wastes in the buildings 
and special crews hauled the hoppers to specially-marked dumpsters. Routine 
visual checks ensured that recycling haulers would leave the site with 
uncontaminated loads 

Use of Recycled Content Building Materials 

While minimum recycled content requirements were specified for many 
construction materials, good partnering for construction has led to materials with 
even better recycled content than originally specified. Recognizing the 
environmental goals of the project, the general contractor has searched for and 
found some materials with higher recycled content than the minimums required 
in the specification. For example, all rebar is made from a mill that uses the 
electric arc process, a process that utilizes 100 percent recycled scrap steel. 

Another instance in which the general contractor volunteered additional use of 
recycled content was for the roadway base course. The use of a minimum of 20 
percent recycled concrete aggregate was originally specified for the roadway base 
course, however the requirement was one of a few environmental specifications 
deleted when the project went out for rebid. Zero aggregate base course was used 
due to the unavailability of local waste materials of acceptable quality and 
gradation. Now that the project is under construction, however, the general 
contractor has volunteered to use 100 percent crushed concrete scrap for the base 
course when salvaged material is available. 

Submittals Review During Construction 

Review of submittals is a particularly important step in the construction process. 
Submittal packets were compiled by the various subcontractors and sent to the 
project team by the general contractor, often including substitutions to the 
products specified. Environmental and other specifications must be tracked by the 
architects to avoid getting lost in the process and defeating the team’s efforts in the 
final stages of the project. 

In the EPA Campus, for example, the main building’s specifications clearly listed 
volatile organic compound (VOC) limits for paint products as well as prohibited 
hazardous substances, for which certification of compliance was required. Yet in 
the various paint submittal packets received, many of the substitutions included 
clearly non-compliant products. Midway it was discovered that the paint 
subcontractor did not have a copy of the environmental criteria. Individual 
substitutions were rejected based upon noncompliance with these criteria until full 
compliance, with little exception, was achieved-a process that took over six 
months. This illustrates the importance of maintaining a consistent level of 
attention to the integrity of the specifications, particularly for environmental 
criteria which are less familiar to many of the parties involved. 


73 


Design Process: Construction 


Constant Vigilance 

Through close attention to detail at every step of the process, the project team 
has seen most of the environmental design goals of the new EPA campus come to 
fruition. And for every small detail that has not ultimately materialized, there have 
been new, unexpected environmental gains such as the voluntary concrete 
recycling program offered by the contractor. The key to this success has been the 
commitment by all parties to the common goals of high quality, cost-effectiveness, 
and environmental stewardship. 

As the chapters of design and construction draw to a close, and operations begin, 
EPA continues its commitment to make this a model, sustainable campus-still 
climbing the greening curve. 



The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 


74 













ENDNOTES 


Our Common FutureiThe World Commission on Environment and 
Development, Chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland of Norway, 

Oxford University Press, New York, 1987. 

David Malin Roodman and Nicholas Lenssen, A Building Revolution: How 
Ecology and Health Concerns are Transforming Construction, Worldwatch 
Paper 124,Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC, March 1995; and the 
U.S. EPA solid waste program. 

Lester R. Brown et. al„ State of the World, Making Better Buildings, 
page 95. (chapter by Nicholas Lenssen and David Malin Roodman) 

W.W. Norton & Company, New York, NY, 1995. 

Report to Congress on Indoor Air Quality, Volume II: Assessment and Control of 
Indoor Air Pollution, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of 
Air and Radiation (OAR), (Washington, DC, 1989). 

The Trane Company, Trane Air Conditioning Economics (TRACE), an 
analytical tool enabling building system designers to optimize the 
building, system and equipment designs on the basis of energy utilization 
and life cycle cost. 

Lumen Micro, Lighting Technologies Inc., software that provides tools to 
create, simulate and analyze lighting layouts for both indoor and outdoor 
applications. 

Sparks, L.E.; Exposure Version 2: A Computer Model for Analyzing the 
Effects of Indoor Air Pollutant Sources on Individual Exposure, 

EPA-600/8-91 -013 (NTIS PB91-507764). Air Pollution Prevention and 
Control Division, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1991. 

Note:The Exposure model has been replaced with a new model called RISK. 

David Malin Roodman and Nicholas Lenssen, A Building Revolution: 

How Ecology and Health Concerns Are Tranforming Construction, 

Worldwatch paper 124, page 23. (Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute, 
March 1995. Library of Congress number 95-060295). 





To obtain a copy of “The Greening Curve” contact: 

«, , 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
Office of Administration and Resources Mgmt, 

. . MD-C-604-05 

Research Triangle. Park, NC 27711 


LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



0 009 790 324 4 


Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper with a minimum 50% post-consumer fiber using vegetable-based ink 























iVX -■ —— ' 









































































































































































































































































































